Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Skills - Does anyone actually like the way they're headed?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EvilDwarf" data-source="post: 6200030" data-attributes="member: 46843"><p>Having spent most of my years playing AD&D, I have a bias against skills. We did just fine with the DM judging the relative difficulty of a task based on class, character specific experience (Oh, yeah, Homer the fighter has fought liches before, so he would know something about this puzzle/maze/trap etc) and then we'd roll d100 lol.</p><p></p><p>I'm ok with skills, but there's so much challenge to implementing them correctly: what skills do you include, the cleric with high wisdom out-spotting the ranger problem, the flat math problem, the DC problem, the should DCs increase with character level like monster AC problem, and so on, ahem. </p><p></p><p>Not trolling here, but I think 13th Age (and even early Next packets) got it closer by having broad backgrounds that would forgo the need for specific skills and make sense in why a character has skills, etc. Now, you might say this introduces the DM may I problem, but hey, the DM is in charge of the game and the world already, or should be.</p><p></p><p>And...well, Mearls said it himself when Monte was still around. Monte had a really interesting idea with the Trained and Expertise idea--and now we see it implemented very well in Numenera. In this system, the character reduces the DC of the task depending on Trained or Expert in the skill. This takes care of some of the wonkiness of the d20 and accounts for flat math and eliminates the problem of how much a bonus should be the bonus. I guess you could say that reducing the DC by one step is the same as a +5 bonus, and reducing the DC two steps is a +10 bonus, but it's not, really, if you think about the flat math and the upper bounds of what should be possible for a PC. </p><p></p><p>So, I don't like how skills are implemented thus far. They still feel very much like they are in beta, which I guess they are, lol. Having said that, the skills in 3 and 3.5 seem like beta versions, too. Can't say about 4 because I didn't get to play it much.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EvilDwarf, post: 6200030, member: 46843"] Having spent most of my years playing AD&D, I have a bias against skills. We did just fine with the DM judging the relative difficulty of a task based on class, character specific experience (Oh, yeah, Homer the fighter has fought liches before, so he would know something about this puzzle/maze/trap etc) and then we'd roll d100 lol. I'm ok with skills, but there's so much challenge to implementing them correctly: what skills do you include, the cleric with high wisdom out-spotting the ranger problem, the flat math problem, the DC problem, the should DCs increase with character level like monster AC problem, and so on, ahem. Not trolling here, but I think 13th Age (and even early Next packets) got it closer by having broad backgrounds that would forgo the need for specific skills and make sense in why a character has skills, etc. Now, you might say this introduces the DM may I problem, but hey, the DM is in charge of the game and the world already, or should be. And...well, Mearls said it himself when Monte was still around. Monte had a really interesting idea with the Trained and Expertise idea--and now we see it implemented very well in Numenera. In this system, the character reduces the DC of the task depending on Trained or Expert in the skill. This takes care of some of the wonkiness of the d20 and accounts for flat math and eliminates the problem of how much a bonus should be the bonus. I guess you could say that reducing the DC by one step is the same as a +5 bonus, and reducing the DC two steps is a +10 bonus, but it's not, really, if you think about the flat math and the upper bounds of what should be possible for a PC. So, I don't like how skills are implemented thus far. They still feel very much like they are in beta, which I guess they are, lol. Having said that, the skills in 3 and 3.5 seem like beta versions, too. Can't say about 4 because I didn't get to play it much. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Skills - Does anyone actually like the way they're headed?
Top