D&D 5E Skills in 5e

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do you have any idea what my playstyle is. The issue of mundane skills becoming irrelevant at high levels is an issue in every edition. The only time it's not an issue is if you don't have mundane tasks presented at high level, which is just one of the many solutions to the issue.

lol, thanks, I was tempted to answer that wonderful illogic

I guess in brief, there are indeed 'universal problems' in RPGs. There aren't universal SOLUTIONS, but every RPG designer eventually runs into some form of the same problems. It is even more true when you limit yourself to a particular game design toolset as D&D does. Trivially you will run into the same design issue again and again, such as the width of a d20.

There are vast numbers of examples of skills which any character should be able to practice beyond walking and which are utterly non-controversial. Anyone should be able to attempt to for instance: Use a rope to descend from a height, row or sail a small boat, use carpentry tools and wood to make a simple structure, swing a sword, shoot a bow, set up a deadfall, make a fire, virtually any social task, hide, sneak, etc etc etc. An ordinary person in the real world can expect to succeed at those things routinely under good conditions. Low level adventurers presumably are a bit more capable. Most systems basically allow for this stuff of course. I think it is equally pretty clear that there's nothing wrong with, and that it is quite logical if, high level PCs can do these things under more 'fantastical' conditions. That even untrained PCs can make an attempt at guiding their boat through the waterfall at the edge of the world or whatever. In 4e they will have a LOW chance of success, usually, but at least they can TRY.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I guess in brief, there are indeed 'universal problems' in RPGs. There aren't universal SOLUTIONS, but every RPG designer eventually runs into some form of the same problems. It is even more true when you limit yourself to a particular game design toolset as D&D does. Trivially you will run into the same design issue again and again, such as the width of a d20.

.

see, but i think this is the point a lot of people actually disagree over in so many of these debates. They are only universal if everyone views them as a problem. For example, 4E addressed a lot of concerns people had, but it wasnt universally accepted that these were problems. I think these things are all potential problems. For example the wide range of roll results in d20 presents a potential problem, and for many people the d20 ssytem had an actual problem here (though not everyone agrees). However that wasnt nearly as much of a potential issue in AD&D because it didnt have huge modifiers and steadily increasing DCs the way d20. But one mans problem is another man's feature. So the strength of d20 is its range.

I think the issue I have here is people state things like X is always a problem and then some of us come on and say "it wasnt an issue for how I played the game, in fact I piked how x worked in edition x". Instead of just accepting it, people keep insisting x is always a problem. I see a lot of debates about 4E go this way where people can get very insistent that 4E addressed issues everyone had and that its solutions are universally good (and before 4E people were saying the same with 3E). The reverse is true as well of course. Some people complained about features of 4E as universally problematic, while others clearly were not having the same issues. Now with next we are having similar discussions.

To me it just sounds like folks are trying to term their own tastes in game mechanics into universal requirements of any system.

 

[sheadunne]

i guess I dont see this as a problem. It still can come up, if the players dont have a relevant skill or magic item, and if they need to resort to combat to get around something a skilled person could overcome through his skill, then I would argue it is still relevant in that case (because if they had the skill they wouldnt need to be fighting). For me it is about keeping the setting consistent and believable. NWP worked fine at high level in my opinion. I really think seeing this as an issue though is related to playstyle. If you create adventures by building challenges around skills, then yes, when the players get around a wall you hoped they would climb by flying then it could be an issue. But in my campiagns the wall is there because it makes sense ot be there. Thief has a flat climb percentage chance, which he can raise as he levels if he wishes. Other characters do too but they dont go up. A 20th level fighter will find a wall climb about as challenging as a 1st leel fighter, except he can fall more. The wizard might be able to get around it with a spell.

I am not going to worry about whether it presents an appropriate challenge to the party (if they have a tool that gets around it, they have a tool that gets around it). But I wouldn't overstate the impact of magic. It really does boil down to what spells you have and have memorized, whether the spell caster is still standing present, and what spells you have already spent. A non-weapon proficiency like Ettiquette could still come in handy when you appear before nobility or the king for instance even at high level. But if the wizard happens to use a divination spell instead, I am not really seeing a problem (ettiquette in 2E isnt like diplomacy in 3E, it is a knowledge nwp).

The skill is still relevant, it's just not equal. I run skill heavy games in both my 1e/BECMI and PF/3x games. There are more skills being used than combats being fought. I am constantly disappointed with the limitations in both. I looked at NWP and played around with them in my 1e game, but was still left unsatisfied. (Keep in mind I'm only talking about high level play here, both systems are fine for low level and even mid-level play.) What I'm looking for is a sub-system that makes it possible to play D&D from only a skill-based perspective. Exploration and Social tiers are essential to my gaming experience, more so than combat. Skills are an essential part of those, especially for Exploration. If I put a cliff in the underground lair, I want the players to climb it, not fly over it. But nor do I want to work around the system to prevent the use of flying. Skills have always been an outlier of D&D.

This isn't a playstyle issue, because it appears I play similar to you. I don't design my games based around challenges, I design based around the world the characters are in. The problem is the rules don't support that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The skill is still relevant, it's just not equal. I run skill heavy games in both my 1e/BECMI and PF/3x games. There are more skills being used than combats being fought. I am constantly disappointed with the limitations in both. I looked at NWP and played around with them in my 1e game, but was still left unsatisfied. (Keep in mind I'm only talking about high level play here, both systems are fine for low level and even mid-level play.) What I'm looking for is a sub-system that makes it possible to play D&D from only a skill-based perspective. Exploration and Social tiers are essential to my gaming experience, more so than combat. Skills are an essential part of those, especially for Exploration. If I put a cliff in the underground lair, I want the players to climb it, not fly over it. But nor do I want to work around the system to prevent the use of flying. Skills have always been an outlier of D&D.

This isn't a playstyle issue, because it appears I play similar to you. I don't design my games based around challenges, I design based around the world the characters are in. The problem is the rules don't support that.

I think it still may be a playstyle issue, because these things are not the problem for me that they are for you (and I am not convinced out style of play is the same). Part of my playstyle is not caring if they fly over the cliff or not. The cliff is what it is, and I dont alter it to make it more of a challenge to a higher level party. It still may pose a challenge though, depending on what their resources are. The focus of my games isn't challenging players through skills and nwps, its roleplaying and investigation. To me it doesnt matter if they use detect or divination. When I make the adventure though I do so in a world where these magics exist, so an effective criminal may use magic himself to hinder things like divination.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This isn't a playstyle issue, because it appears I play similar to you. I don't design my games based around challenges, I design based around the world the characters are in. The problem is the rules don't support that.

Well, we are doing something different though because for you the game isnt supporting what you want to do, and for me it works just fine. So either how we play the game or our expectations are different. I did encounter problems with d20 skills, mostly because I found the diplomacy and other social skills got in the way (because in an investigation I dont want skills to replace the in game dialogue in any way, the players specific lines of qeustioning are more important to me than a die roll). I also thinking the scaling in d20 can get out of hand. But in 2E, with NWPs, I ran investigation and rp heavy games in Ravenloft for years without having any issues.

i guess to me it just sounds like there is something in the way the mechanics play out that affects you but not me. That or I dont clearly understand the problem you are describing.

 

[sheadunne]

I think it still may be a playstyle issue, because these things are not the problem for me that they are for you (and I am not convinced out style of play is the same). Part of my playstyle is not caring if they fly over the cliff or not. The cliff is what it is, and I dont alter it to make it more of a challenge to a higher level party. It still may pose a challenge though, depending on what their resources are. The focus of my games isn't challenging players through skills and nwps, its roleplaying and investigation. To me it doesnt matter if they use detect or divination. When I make the adventure though I do so in a world where these magics exist, so an effective criminal may use magic himself to hinder things like divination.

I never mentioned anything about challenging the characters. It's not about creating challenges, it's about skills accurately reflecting and participating in the game of D&D. The choice of options should be equal between climbing or flying or ignoring, and currently they are not. This doesn't mean they have to be balanced, but they should reflect a valid choice.

And it seems like you do challenge players. You select the criminal. You select the magic. You select the cliff. What you're saying is that you don't do so based on the party resources. I do it the exact same way. The issue with this style is that eventually you reach a point where the game stops. The players do not have adequate resources in order to achieve their goals. So they go back to town and hire someone, find something, etc, which is the equivalent of the DM giving them the means to bypass the obstacle. This is a perfectly fine way to accomplish it, but it's no different than the 4e method which basically says, you'll get around it eventually, so why not just have you do it and ignore the part we think is boring. Those are differences in playstyle. I lean toward the former option, not the later. The issue I have is when the players sit there at the cliff and give up because skills do not adequately reflect their ability to climb the cliff. They know they can go back to town and get their supplies and hire help, etc, but they're frustrated that logically there's no reason they shouldn't be able to climb the cliff. They're 20th level! They can kill colossal red dragons without blinking, and yet they can't climb a cliff? They've been in courts for over 30 years and they can't dress properly to impress the king? They've been adventuring for 20 levels and they can't cook breakfast in the morning? Etc. There reaches a point where a skill becomes irrelevant in the course of the game and some tasks are just mundane enough to ignore after a sufficient amount of time has past.

Basically I'm just saying skills need to be relevant across all levels. They also need a system that works for when a task doesn't need a roll and when a task requires a roll. While I'm not a fan of the current 5e method, at least they attempt to accomplish this. The 4e method at least acknowledges this and makes a choice. 1e doesn't view it as important. 2e wants to use it but hasn't figured out how. And 3e experimented and created entirely new issues

 

[sheadunne]

Well, we are doing something different though because for you the game isnt supporting what you want to do, and for me it works just fine. So either how we play the game or our expectations are different. I did encounter problems with d20 skills, mostly because I found the diplomacy and other social skills got in the way (because in an investigation I dont want skills to replace the in game dialogue in any way, the players specific lines of qeustioning are more important to me than a die roll). I also thinking the scaling in d20 can get out of hand. But in 2E, with NWPs, I ran investigation and rp heavy games in Ravenloft for years without having any issues.

i guess to me it just sounds like there is something in the way the mechanics play out that affects you but not me. That or I dont clearly understand the problem you are describing.

I think I've identified where the difference is. I require rolls, you do not. If they're talking to the king, no matter what the conversation, the kings reaction is partially based on a roll and not entirely based on the conversation. Is this the case?

 

[GMMichael]

The issue I have is when the players sit there at the cliff and give up because skills do not adequately reflect their ability to climb the cliff. They know they can go back to town and get their supplies and hire help, etc, but they're frustrated that logically there's no reason they shouldn't be able to climb the cliff. They're 20th level! They can kill colossal red dragons without blinking, and yet they can't climb a cliff? They've been in courts for over 30 years and they can't dress properly to impress the king? They've been adventuring for 20 levels and they can't cook breakfast in the morning? Etc. There reaches a point where a skill becomes irrelevant in the course of the game and some tasks are just mundane enough to ignore after a sufficient amount of time has past.

Basically I'm just saying skills need to be relevant across all levels. They also need a system that works for when a task doesn't need a roll and when a task requires a roll. While I'm not a fan of the current 5e method, at least they attempt to accomplish this. The 4e method at least acknowledges this and makes a choice. 1e doesn't view it as important. 2e wants to use it but hasn't figured out how. And 3e experimented and created entirely new issues

I made an honest effort to gauge the point of conversation here (which may have wandered past what's happening in 5E). Here's my best effort to keep up:

- one potential problem with DM "scaling" issues: not realizing the significance of 20th, or high, level. Is it the game breaking down, or the participants' understanding of what the game is saying? In my campaigns, characters are considered "legendary" by level 6, because beyond that, weird things start happening. Which is to say, by 12th level, the characters can't really even be best defined as "people" anymore. They're more like "divine emissaries." Wrap your head around that, and high-level skill issues might start to make more sense.

- "Why, then, can't a 'divine emissary' swim across a raging river, just because he's a cleric (and doesn't have the class skill)?" Pay attention, folks. Let's look at an oldie-but-goldie: Jesus. He couldn't swim across a raging river either. He just walked on water. Choose your battles, and choose your skills.

- "But might and magic make skills worthless!" See my first point. In a fantasy game, that's bound to happen. But if you're still resisting it, think about the neutralizing that party mage where you want skills to be relevant again - with an anti-magic field. Or with a bizarro-mage. Or keep the mage busy using his spells on other things, so that he simply can't afford to use a spell on something for which the rest of the party has skill, anyway.

- When does the task need a roll? It's a bit of a DM judgment call, huh? Okay, if you'd like it to be more concrete, you can do the d20 thing and say "if you could succeed by rolling 10 or less, you can just take 10 and succeed." Yes, d20 doesn't allow this under duress. If you ask me, it's for no good reason, which is why I've allowed duress-10s in the system I'm working on. So why should a high-level character risk rolling low, or even rolling an automatic-fail-1, when he's obviously so good at being a hero? Because no system is perfect. Accept that, house-rule it, and move on.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think I've identified where the difference is. I require rolls, you do not. If they're talking to the king, no matter what the conversation, the kings reaction is partially based on a roll and not entirely based on the conversation. Is this the case?

I tend to avoid social rolls. This is why I really prefer the 1E/2E reaction roll which you ucan use or not, but it simply sets the stage for the npcs dispositoin. Whereas with 3E style diplomacy and bluff the roll can interfere with, augment, what the player is saying in character.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I
And it seems like you do challenge players. You select the criminal. You select the magic. You select the cliff. What you're saying is that you don't do so based on the party resources. I do it the exact same way. The issue with this style is that eventually you reach a point where the game stops. The players do not have adequate resources in order to achieve their goals. So they go back to town and hire someone, find something, etc, which is the equivalent of the DM giving them the means to bypass the obstacle. This is a perfectly fine way to accomplish it, but it's no different than the 4e method which basically says, you'll get around it eventually, so why not just have you do it and ignore the part we think is boring. Those are differences in playstyle. I lean toward the former option, not the later. The issue I have is when the players sit there at the cliff and give up because skills do not adequately reflect their ability to climb the cliff. They know they can go back to town and get their supplies and hire help, etc, but they're frustrated that logically there's no reason they shouldn't be able to climb the cliff. They're 20th level! They can kill colossal red dragons without blinking, and yet they can't climb a cliff? They've been in courts for over 30 years and they can't dress properly to impress the king? They've been adventuring for 20 levels and they can't cook breakfast in the morning? Etc. There reaches a point where a skill becomes irrelevant in the course of the game and some tasks are just mundane enough to ignore after a sufficient amount of time has past.

But this doesnt bother me at all. I am okay with 20th level characters notnbeing able to overcome a a cliff if they didnt take any ranks in climb (or in 2E if they didnt bring a thief with the climb skill to climb up and toss down a rope). I am also fine with flying being the superior choice here because flying is superior to climbing. If they have to go back to town, give up and pick another path or just dont explore that part of the complex, I am totally fine with that. As a player I am fine with it as well.

Regarding the 4E solution, to me that isnt the same as going to town and finding someone to help (and going to town and getting help isnt boring for me). So the 4E solution, actually eliminates a piece of the game at for me contributes to its richness and depth. There are all kinds of reasons why going back to town could be significant.