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.