Skills +2 bonus or +5?

[Falling Icicle]

Skills in 5e will supposedly be bonuses to ability score rolls (i.e. Strength: climbing +2 or Dexterity: picking locks +2). Alot of people seem to be assuming that skills will grant a mere +2 bonus. That may well turn out to be the case, but I think 4e's +5 trained bonus makes more sense here, especially if you are going to get a +1 bonus per point above 10 instead of 1 pt for every 2 points above 10 (we don't know that, I'm just speculating).

In either case, a +2 modifier is roughly a +10% chance to succeed on a d20 roll. I think that's pretty insignificant, and does little to distinguish someone who has training in a skill from someone who doesn't. A +5 bonus (+25%) makes more sense to me, and is more singificant a bonus, while still not being such a large bonus that being untrained in a skill is doomed to failure.

Thoughts?

[Edit] Another thought: perhaps at higher levels people can get "expert" training in a skill, granting the equivalent of the skill focus feat in past editions (an additional +3, bringing the total to +8). Maybe at really high levels you can become a "master", bringing the total bonus to +10. A "master" succeeding 50% more often than an untrained person and 25% more often than a novice in that skill makes sense to me.

 

[Guest 85555]

Skills in 5e will supposedly be bonuses to ability score rolls (i.e. Strength: climbing +2 or Dexterity: picking locks +2). Alot of people seem to be assuming that skills will grant a mere +2 bonus. That may well turn out to be the case, but I think 4e's +5 trained bonus makes more sense here, especially if you are going to get a +1 bonus per point above 10 instead of 1 pt for every 2 points above 10 (we don't know that, I'm just speculating).

In either case, a +2 modifier is roughly a +10% chance to succeed on a d20 roll. I think that's pretty insignificant, and does little to distinguish someone who has training in a skill from someone who doesn't. A +5 bonus (+25%) makes more sense to me, and is more singificant a bonus, while still not being such a large bonus that being untrained in a skill is doomed to failure.

Thoughts?

[Edit] Another thought: perhaps at higher levels people can get "expert" training in a skill, granting the equivalent of the skill focus feat in past editions (an additional +3, bringing the total to +8). Maybe at really high levels you can become a "master", bringing the total bonus to +10. A "master" succeeding 50% more often than an untrained person and 25% more often than a novice in that skill makes sense to me.

If I understand this correctly it sounds like they are taking the old non weapon proficiency mechanic of rolling under your stat (with bonuses for additional ranks) and trying to make it more intuitive. This could work, i have long felt the nwp system is far superior to the 3e & 4e skills.

I actually dont like the roll d20 plus modifier mechanic. I think the numbers get out of hand and while addition is easier than subtraction, it requires a brief calculation for every roll. I think a roll under attribute core system works better because all the numvers are contained within the 1-20 parameter (provided you dont allow 21 or greater str and stuff), and you do the calculations before the game starts. So in play all you need to know is the target number set by your attribute and skill (there are even ways to turn this around so it is roll over rather than under).

This is just my personal prefrence, i doubt many would agree.

 

[Falling Icicle]

If I understand this correctly it sounds like they are taking the old non weapon proficiency mechanic of rolling under your stat (with bonuses for additional ranks) and trying to make it more intuitive. This could work, i have long felt the nwp system is far superior to the 3e & 4e skills.

No offense, but I hope not. I think the d20 + modifier against DC mechanic is the best thing 3e added to the game. I find it hard to imagine that they would go back to something like a roll under your score system, THAC0, or anything else like that.

That said, I did like 2e's Non-weapon proficiencies in other ways. They really let you custom tailor a character with very specific quirks. I didn't like having a skill for fire building, granted, but things like juggling or astrology were fun. I've never had such specific, flavorful skills in 3e, since there were too many important skills to buy. It sounds to me like 5e is going to have a more specific set of skills like 2e did, so maybe we'll get the best of both worlds.

 

[Sammael]

Trevor confirmed that the current mechanic is d20 + modifiers vs DC.

 

[Number48]

My thought is that skill will be D20 + the entire stat + bonuses. This will have number going up to reach a target but is mechanically similar to rolling under your stat. I am not at all convinced there will be such a thing as modifiers derived from stats.

I scaling in numbers is slow, like they imply, than I think +2 from one bonus source is enough. Also, don't forget that you only roll if there is a question of success. Many things can be auto success or auto failure.

 

[Yora]

If you can advance your skills only by means of something like feats as your character gains more levels, than this advancement should be meaningful. +5 makes a lot more sense than a meager +2.

 

[Number48]

If you can advance your skills only by means of something like feats as your character gains more levels, than this advancement should be meaningful. +5 makes a lot more sense than a meager +2.

Maybe, but who says it will be only by feats?

 

[Hassassin]

I, too, really hope they keep "higher is better" universal and use d20 + bonus against DC.

What I don't like about a static skill bonus is the lack of growth. I want characters to both become better at things they know and to pick up new skills.

Assuming attack bonuses increase by +1 every few levels, I see no reason skills should be much less granular. Having +2 be the minimum increase wouldn't be that bad, but +5 is way too much to my taste.

I also don't see why some see 4e 1/2 level + 5 if trained as simpler than a skill rank system, like that of PF. If you want a simple character, just select skills to max (they are level + 3 if class skill), no need to fiddle with individual skill points unless you want to, and I do.

 

[Hassassin]

My thought is that skill will be D20 + the entire stat + bonuses. This will have number going up to reach a target but is mechanically similar to rolling under your stat. I am not at all convinced there will be such a thing as modifiers derived from stats.

I scaling in numbers is slow, like they imply, than I think +2 from one bonus source is enough. Also, don't forget that you only roll if there is a question of success. Many things can be auto success or auto failure.

So your ability score, which has a range of around 10 points, has five times the effect on the roll as your skill training does? I'd rather have the effects be on the same scale, or the other way around.

 

[Guest 85555]

No offense, but I hope not. I think the d20 + modifier against DC mechanic is the best thing 3e added to the game. I find it hard to imagine that they would go back to something like a roll under your score system, THAC0, or anything else like that.

That said, I did like 2e's Non-weapon proficiencies in other ways. They really let you custom tailor a character with very specific quirks. I didn't like having a skill for fire building, granted, but things like juggling or astrology were fun. I've never had such specific, flavorful skills in 3e, since there were too many important skills to buy. It sounds to me like 5e is going to have a more specific set of skills like 2e did, so maybe we'll get the best of both worlds.

I don't think they will go where I am suggesting. The d20 mechanic is far too popular. I just find after going back to previous editions and playing other games, d20 isn't my preference. I would not want them to go back to thac0 (dislike of it imo opinion is overblown, but there are so many easier ways to achieve the same thing). And like i said, it could be a simple roll over system, since you do the calculations before hand. But you would have to sacrifice alot of sacred cows to make it work (ac for example), and i think after 4e they dont want to make further changes to the recipe.