Skills +2 bonus or +5?

[Minigiant]

Let me see.

I am going to imagine there is some sort of object that has a Intelligence DC 20 to beat.

The four PC party consists of:
Fighter with 9 Int
Rogue with 14 Int plus skill bonus
Cleric with 11 Int plus skill bonus
Wizard with 17 Int

With 3e/4e modifiers and +2 skill bonus, that is (-1, +4+2+4)

 

[Minigiant]

Let me see.

I am going to imagine there is some sort of obstacle that has a Intelligence DC to beat.

The four PC party consists of:
Fighter with 9 Int
Rogue with 14 Int plus skill bonus
Cleric with 11 Int plus skill bonus
Wizard with 18 Int

With 3e/4e modifiers and +2 skill bonus, that is (-1, +4,+2,+4)
With 3e/4e modifiers and +5 skill bonus, that is (-1, +7,+5,+4)
With full ability scores and +2 skill bonus, that is (+9, +16, +13,+18)
With full ability scores and +5 skill bonus, that is (+9, +19,+16,+18)
With half ability scores and +2 skill bonus, that is (+4, +9, +7,+9)
With half ability scores and +5 skill bonus, that is (+4, +12, +10, +9)

I like natural ability and trained skill to be equal in strength with a mix of both overpowering them both. Therefore I favor +5 or +4.

 

[Zireael]

So you think +5 is better than +2? What about

[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.

I like the idea of expert and master... would you use it?

 

[fba827]

it kind of depends on what the scaling of the DCs is like and what other types of things can (and cannot) also modify these rolls.

*IF* DC scaling is similar to that of 4e and other types of things (like items!) are modifying skills, then +2 is NOT insignificant in my opinion... in 4e even at low levels with all the skill training, background bonuses, items, and feats PCs can have some (for lack of better term) obscenely high modifiers without too much sacrificing in exchange.

Even scaling, etc aside a +10% bump represented by a +2 is not small... it's like going to (american) school for a test and instead of just being an average climber (C student), you're now an advanced climber (B student) just by a 10% boost.

So bottom line: it depends a lot on what the DC is and what else can modify it - way too little info to make a good call at this stage. But if playing on theory alone, a +2 is good to me!

 

[BobTheNob]

+5 or +2 huh?

My thoughts. We started 2e without NWPs, and it was all just roll the stat. It just came down to improvising backed with 6 numbers.

Then NWP's came in. Great, I can further define my character. Then 3e brought skills. Wow, I can really define with far greater granularity! Then 4e yada yada....

But somewhere along the way of this brilliant design I reaslised something. We had stopped improvising. Skills said "You can do this", and so thats what we did. Instead of players coming up with wacky solutions to problems, they started quoting skills, and if they didnt have the skill, to allow improvisation undermined the presence of a skill system.

You see the thing I dont like about a skill system in general is that even though they are meant to dictate what you can do, the inevitable result is they end up dictating what you cant, and that I dont like.

I would go for +2 because its the lesser of the two options. Its minor, but I want it to be minor. If you make it any more, you have to raise difficulties accordingly to prevent auto-success on every roll, which means if you dont have the skill, its practical auto fail, and we are back to the skill system auto-boxing player options.

The more you rely on a skill system, the more you undermine your ability for player improvisation, which to me is the entire reason for playing a table-top RPG

 

[kitsune9]

I think if they scale the math down, then the bonuses should fall too.

 

[the Jester]

I'd like to see skill training's bonus depending on how 'wide' the skill is.

If you are trained in Athletics, you get +2 to anything involving being athletic: running, swimming, climbing, etc.

If you are trained in Running, you get +3 to anything involving running: running fast, endurance running, dodging while running, etc.

If you are trained in Sprinting, you get +4 to anything involving sprinting: running fast. Jumping while running fast. Etc.

If I had to choose just one number, I'd go for +3; I'd also prefer a +2 to 'related, but not directly related' checks, so if your skill is pickpocket, you can get your lesser bonus when you pull a shell game. (This is what my own homebrewed version of D&D uses; in fact, a lot of D&DNext sounds like stuff in my homebrew, but we'll see.)

If I had to choose between +2 and +5, I'd go with +2, because we need to stomp number inflation down IMHO.

 

[Szatany]

How about not having bonus from having a skill? Lets say you can buy a particular skill (like climb) any number of times. Each buy gives you I rank. What do ranks do? For each rank you roll an extra d20 and at the end you simply choose the result from all the dice you rolled. There's little point of taking a skill more than four-five times, but you can do it if you really want to.
Under this system skills do not make you better in absolute sense, but they instead reduce your dependence on random factor/luck.

 

[Tilenas]

I think if they scale the math down, then the bonuses should fall too.

I'd like to see modifier deflation as much as the next guy, but let's not forget that using a d20, this can get really swingy fast, especially if the system is built on opposed checks. Then a +4 difference between a novice and an expert amounts to almost nothing.

I'm sure the check system will be a turnaround "roll-under-ability-score" type, i.e. d20 + score + modifiers vs. 15 (easy)/20 (default)/25 (hard)/etc., as has been pointed out by many.

I'm also sure that skill customization isn't done after character creation. Advancement will be expressed through rising skill modifiers (and maybe also through increasing ability scores), and not just by picking new skills.

I hope there will be an implementation of the crafts rank system Monte mentioned in L&L: novice, apprentice, journeyman, master, (possible) grandmaster. Each set apart by a +5. So instead having a cluster of modifiers, you'd have a small number of possible values.

In fact, I'd like to see a "roll under ability" option that does away completely with numerical DCs: Every task would have a difficulty named after the necessary rank to do an unmodified check, like climbing (master). If you're one rank below that, you roll at a -5 penalty, if you're one rank above, you get a +5 bonus (or even succeed automatically).

 

[BobTheNob]

How about not having bonus from having a skill? Lets say you can buy a particular skill (like climb) any number of times. Each buy gives you I rank. What do ranks do? For each rank you roll an extra d20 and at the end you simply choose the result from all the dice you rolled. There's little point of taking a skill more than four-five times, but you can do it if you really want to.
Under this system skills do not make you better in absolute sense, but they instead reduce your dependence on random factor/luck.

I thinks its a fantastic idea to look at skill growth in ways other than just "+X to roll". This idea of the re-roll isnt bad except that combine this with a high enough stat and you would never fail.

I sorta like the idea of powers which work with skill. Like
Dexterity(Stealth Check) "Shadow Step : You can make a stealth check with only without a hiding place as long as the area has minimal shadows". It broadens the way the skill check can be made rather than just +X's stealth

or

Charisma(Persusasion Check) "Group Speach : once per situation You can attempt to shift NPC attitude over an entire group of NPC's, assuming the NPC's are willing to listen" and of course assuming mechanics like defined use of persuasion, but you get the point

But again, in all of this, the more we put focus on skill learning, the more we remove from improvisation. I so prefer in all of this to just NOT have a skill system altogether and just roll stats letting the players come up with creative solutions.