D&D 5E Skills in 5E. Do we want them?

[TrippyHippy]

Now there are some things introduced in 4E that I don't like (Roles + Powers mainly), but other aspects of the game that I am quite ambivilant about. Skills are one them. The thing is that the fully integrated Skill list was only really introduced in 3E, which at the time seemed like an epiphany had finally been reached in the game. Every other game around was a skill-based by that time, so why shouldn't D&D finally catch up?

However, Castles and Crusades changed my mind about it somewhat. The thing is, D&D isn't a skill-based game by tradition - it's a Class and Level based system and the only true Skills we saw for the Thief went up by level. Some people think this is unrealistic - but then they can freely choose to play RuneQuest if they prefer otherwise. Moreover, skill ranks and lists themselves are, in truth, just as much of an abstraction as 'Class and Level' are. It's just a different way of doing things.

Now if you manage to base a system on the Six core Abilities with a bonus determined by Class and Level (in a manner similar to Castles and Crusades SIEGE Engine, or 4E's 1/2 Level bonus), it does make the game a little bit simpler. Moreover, if you remove Skills and Feats from the core rules - and rely strictly upon Class Ability options presented within the Class description itself - it does cut out two rather massive chapters of the book and reduce the complexity (and page count) quite substantially.

Controversial? Maybe, but here's a poll and thread to say what you think!

 

[Hassassin]

I've never seen skills themselves be a problem in 3e. The skill list was a bit long and interactions between skills (synergies) and magic items (+X ability, +X skill) were tedious. This is an area where Pathfinder simplified things.

One real problem is that skill ability varied so much between classes. I'd like to have everyone be good at a few skills.

You could have basically the PF skill system in one page of rules. No need to give DCs for things, leave that to the DM (a table for easy, average, hard etc. and opposed checks) and adventure designers.

Edit: I voted "Pathfinder Beginners", although I haven't actually used it. I *think* I'd like it, and I didn't want to vote for 3.5.

 

[Evenglare]

Skills are fine, however I HATED 4th editions version of +5 to a skill. It's just a bit much in my opinion. Pathfinder seemed alright with the +3 if you put ranks in it and it's a class skill.

 

[trancejeremy]

That is the big reason I can't stand C&C - I hate that SIEGE thing.

The thing though is that D&D always has had a skill system, it was just only for Thieves. 3e tried to make that skill system apply to all classes (which is basically what BRP does, though it throws out the levels, if not always classes)

That said, I think the 3e rules didn't really work. Some classes couldn't do much (Fighters) and the level cap basically meant that really skilled people were combat monsters (since they had to be high level to have really high skills) and that makes no sense for things like sages or architects

Still, I think as long as you have Thieves with skills, not powers or however 4e handles them, presumably, it should be integrated with the skill system as a whole. It just doesn't make sense to have different systems.

Frankly, if I had to start over and go back in time, I would probably choose to go the BRP route - simply have a d100% system for skills like Thieves had.

Because you know, I get sick of just rolling a d20 all the time. Rolling d100 is fun. At least it's a change of pace.

 

[TrippyHippy]

That is the big reason I can't stand C&C - I hate that SIEGE thing.

The thing though is that D&D always has had a skill system, it was just only for Thieves. 3e tried to make that skill system apply to all classes (which is basically what BRP does, though it throws out the levels, if not always classes)

Hmm..not quite. Thieves did have % skills, but their levels went up in regimented fashion each Level they achieved (and you got bonuses for High Dex and by your choice of Race). There were not any skill 'Ranks' to choose. Indeed, considering those skills often went up in 5% increments, it really is no different to adding a Level onto each base score (as in the Siege Engine, or 4E to an extent).

That said, I think the 3e rules didn't really work. Some classes couldn't do much (Fighters) and the level cap basically meant that really skilled people were combat monsters (since they had to be high level to have really high skills) and that makes no sense for things like sages or architects

Another issue, perhaps. My feeling is that, to an extent, the 3E skill system was really just an attempt to RuneQuest-ify the game, and give character design more individual options (Jonathon Tweet was a big RuneQuest fan). I'm just wondering if that is really the best way to achieve this in a Class and Level system. It certainly slows down character generation, and fills up the character sheet a lot.

Still, I think as long as you have Thieves with skills, not powers or however 4e handles them, presumably, it should be integrated with the skill system as a whole. It just doesn't make sense to have different systems.

I agree that Thieves (or Rogues) should keep their skills as a Class feature, but wonder whether their Class Abilities might just be highlighted in the Class description (like C&C essentially).

Frankly, if I had to start over and go back in time, I would probably choose to go the BRP route - simply have a d100% system for skills like Thieves had.

Because you know, I get sick of just rolling a d20 all the time. Rolling d100 is fun. At least it's a change of pace.

Well, that just seems to be change for changes sake to me. But you're entitles to your opinion of course!

 

[frankthedm]

No skills. Let thief abilities set the way the skill system could work, but leave skills out of the PHB.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'm for themed skill packages that are added on top of and regardless of class. Thusly:

Fighter
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard

Wilderness (Examples: Awareness, Lore, Survival)
Urban (Appraising, Diplomacy, Knowledge)
Dungeon (Lock picking, Search, Dungeoneering)
Organized (Crafting, Diplomacy, Knowledge)

An urban fighter is a thug, a militia man.
A wilderness wizard is a druid or a witch.
An organized rogue is a guild member or a spy.
A dungeon cleric is an adventurer or dwarf.

 

[Tuft]

I would like a comprehensive skill list that is *less* tied to attributes, levels and classes than 3.x.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I'd like a list of skills like Pathfinder, but I'd like it if your ability scores matter more than your level, or at least equally as much. I hate level being the ultimate "stat." While it makes sense that characters would improve in things as they get more experienced, your level shouldn't mean multiple times as much as your ability score does, IMO.

For example, I'd give a +1 modifier for every attribute point above 10 (instead of +1 for every 2 points) and I'd have your skills gain no more than a +10 bonus from levels. This would make odd-numbered attributes actually do something, which is something I've wanted to see happen since 3e.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I voted like 3.5 and pathfinder, but some changes

Fewer skills
A cap on skills like +15 or so.
No level cap, though. A first level character can be stellar at one skill, but terrible at all otehrs.
Less variation between the high and low skill classes

Very little or no ability mods to skills

Oh, and in an advanced module, not the basic rules.

 

[ferratus]

I want to go back to 2e proficiencies. Why? Well it had some pretty specific categories for skills like "read lips" and "gaming" that really defined character traits. Sure, you can read lips in 3e and 4e using the Innuendo and Bluff skills (respectively) but generally people forgot about it along with a bunch of other specific skills because it was out of sight.

I understand why all the proficiencies were bundled together in the 3e skill system. Some proficiencies were simply more valuable than others, and most of them weren't used. You were forced to choose between broadly useful proficiencies over specific situational proficiencies (ie. sailing vs. herbalism) and generally the broadly useful proficiencies won out and were used.

But what if we take a page from Skyrim and allow you to use any proficiency, but you were generally only good at the ones you use frequently? Perhaps you start with a 15-25% chance of doing something at 1st level, and once per session you get a 5% upgrade to a skill you use unsuccessfully and a 10% upgrade if you use it successfully.

At 1st level you would also get 100 points or so to put into proficiencies you want to be fairly good at coming into your adventuring career.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'd like a list of skills like Pathfinder, but I'd like it if your ability scores matter more than your level, or at least equally as much. I hate level being the ultimate "stat." While it makes sense that characters would improve in things as they get more experienced, your level shouldn't mean multiple times as much as your ability score does, IMO.

For example, I'd give a +1 modifier for every attribute point above 10 (instead of +1 for every 2 points) and I'd have your skills gain no more than a +10 bonus from levels. This would make odd-numbered attributes actually do something, which is something I've wanted to see happen since 3e.

Skills could have three degrees of mastery and the chance for success could be fixed.

Apprentice 60% chance of success
Journeyman 70% chance of success
Master 80% chance of success

When you reach certain levels you get to improve one of your skills. If your character has five skills you can improve one of your skills at ten occassions. I.e every third levels.

So if I am an apprentice in Pick pocketing at first level I get my first chance to improve it to journeyman at 3rd.

The important thing in this model is that the skills are set. Apprentice is 60% regardless of skill, level or character. Ability scores would still somehow be a factor though.

This model would be worth its salt thanks to three things. 1. It wouldn't destroy the scale. 2. It would introduce names for competence. 3. DCs wouldn't have to be set all the time.

 

[Dagredhel]

My preference would be a seperate level-base 'proficiencies' subsystem to represent all noncombat abilities.

It would include trained skills, natural talents, extraordinary abilities, and even supernatural effects (spells, rituals, etc.) that don't directly affect combat mechanics.

It would work likes feat selection. 'Skills' could be handled similar to the treatment in Star Wars Saga Edition, with each selection upgrading level of ability, rather than on an X points per level basis. Other options could improve and/or expand on ability score based capabilities (greater carrying capacity, etc.) or offer new options.

 

[SageMinerve]

I know not everyone will agree with this, but in my view ALL D&D editions had skills for all characters:

THAC0 / Attack bonus
Saves

Those are, in a sense, specialized skills that all characters have, at least in the same fashion that thieves had skills in earlier editions.

Why am I saying this? Just to show that the idea of Skills is not necessarily anathema to the spirit of early D&D. The big differences are: 1) Skills are limited to a a few situations; 2) Players can't decide how those skills will grow.

So to me the debate is: should skills cover just a few things or every aspect of a PC's life AND should players be able to dictate how the character learns / develop those skills?

(By the way, I voted 3.5/Pathfinder because although I play 4th, I prefer a longer list of skills)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I say yes to a skill system. It doesn't need to be more complex than 4E skill system. I don't think we need to fiddle with skill points. 2 or 3 states of trained (none, good, focused) sounds enough to me. I would perhaps not model all skill training with a modifier. Roll 2d20 and pick the highest is also a neat method, especially since it keeps the range of values for the skill reasonable, and allows people without full training in anything to still contribute - they just need a little more luck.

 

[vagabundo]

• Yes to a skill system - kill feats instead.
• No to skill points.
• I'm ambivalent about what skills should be there, except they should be all of use in adventuring
• Crafting and profession should be handled by some sort of background system. This could include skill checks or challenges, but they should not be part of the default skill system.
• Something interesting needs to be done about knowledge skills. I'm not very happy with them, but I'm not sure what.

 

[Frostmarrow]

How about rolling 'damage' to complete extended tests or skill challenges? Say a trek through the wilderness has 10 'hit points' and each successful skill check clears 1d6+bonus points of progress in order to complete the trek. Each round the task is not completed something negative happens such as a day passes and one day's worth of rations are depleted.

 

[Minigiant]

Skill System
About 10 skills
Skills Points is just an option (mentioned in a passing paragraph)
4-5 skill levels (Untrained, Trained, Heroic, Paragon, Epic)
Ability modifiers added to skill rolls
Not level based but able to be increased
Skill tiers have moderate jumps but passes starting ability modifier easily (+0, +5, +10, +15)

 

[Ahnehnois]

The skill system is one of 3e's transcendent accomplishments and should be maintained and developed. If we'd had this forum when they were still working on 3e, I (and a lot of others) would have been clamoring for something like it.

The big problem was with the restrictiveness of class skills. The half-ranks thing was too crippling, and it was too difficult to play off type. There definitely needed to be some mechanism by which rogues were stealthier than most people, but what they did was too restrictive. There should just be a bonus for certain skills for certain classes (PF and 4e both did that, though the 4e standard modifier meant that all characters got better with everything, which I don't advocate).

The other problem was that the skills weren't broad enough.

I'd really like to see skill trees. You take your first five ranks (or thereabouts) in general academic knowledge, and then from there on out you have to specialize, taking specific ranks for History, Arcana, Geography, etc. You take your first give ranks in acrobatics, and then specialize in Tumble or Balance. You take your first five in influence, and then specialize in Bluff or Diplo or Intimidate. It would allow for a lot more detail and robustness without clogging the character sheet, and it would make the game easy for beginners at 1st level while retaining the detail for more advanced players as they move up the ladder. It would allow a concrete list of general skills, while making it easy for DM's to make up subspecialties of them as needed. That's modularity in practice.

Thus, I answered "more skills", although my real answer's not exactly that.

 

[keterys]

I'd be good with a very minimal core skill system and let folks dial up the complexity.

For example, skill ranks (ala 3e) pretty much need to be an option, not a requirement. If instead folks only have a couple of ranks (like what they were talking about in some of the L&L articles), that's not much different than picking training/mastery in a skill, so sure.