D&D 5E Skills Should Be Core

[Falling Icicle]

While I think that their attempt to make skills an optional and easily removed component of the game was noble, let's face it, it's just not going to work. Skills are something that most people have simply come to expect to be a part of the core rules of an RPG. I really think the core rules should assume that skills exist. I, for one, think the game would be greatly diminished without a solid skill system.

Don't get me wrong. I like the emphasis on ability scores. I think the DCs of actions should be made assuming that people don't have skills, so that those who do truly have an advantage, rather than skills being a requirement to even try. But that said, all the wavering back and forth by the developers on skills has accomplished nothing. Now they're talking about not having skills in the core rules at all, and even suggest adding to the DCs of checks if you choose to use them. Ugh. They are trying to please everyone, and will please no one.

I liked the way they were doing skills a couple packets ago (aside from the skill list itself, which needed some work). I like the skill die. I like classes giving you a couple free skills (rather than this new stuff that gives advantage on certain types of checks, this is exactly what I don't want to see: core rules that doesn't play well with skills and assumes that they don't exist.) Using advantage is especially problematic, IMO. Advantage is something that should be given out by class abilities and the like very rarely, since it doesn't stack. The DM might want to gvie a wizard advantage on an Int check to recall lore if he spends time in a library, for example. But since wizards already have advantage, they have no incentive to do such things. There's no reason to try and roleplay for circumstancial benefits because they don't do anything when you already automatically have advantage on your check. If the wizard simply got the magical lore skill for free, on the other hand, this wouldn't be a problem.

They can still have options for replacing skills with something else (such as a simple class/background based use of the skill die). That's fine. But I hope they don't make the core rules a hollow shell of a game just because there are some people that want to play a bare-bones game without things like skills and feats. Give the minimalists options to play their way, but don't do so at the expense of everyone else. It's alot easier to remove something like skills at one's table than it is to add them in.

 

[Talath]

I disagree. I am firmly of the opinion that at its most basic level, the choices being made should be race, class, equipment packages, stats, maybe alignment.

There are people out there who did not start playing D&D when they were 10 years old, and for them, it would be best for them to ease into increasingly complex options. I've tried guiding newcomers into making 3.5 characters, and it's a lengthy process. Making these kind of details optional (or at least, baked into the classes and races) would go a long way to making D&D approachable. You want to get people up and going with minimal effort without making them feel like they have no choice in making the character they want (as with pregens). Get them hooked and wanting to learn more, and they may want to pursue more complex rules in time.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I disagree. I am firmly of the opinion that at its most basic level, the choices being made should be race, class, equipment packages, stats, maybe alignment.

There are people out there who did not start playing D&D when they were 10 years old, and for them, it would be best for them to ease into increased options. I've tried guiding newcomers into making 3.5 characters, and it's a length process. Making these kind of details optional (or at least, baked into the classes and races) would go a long way to making D&D approachable.

They can always make a basic version of the game, without things like skills or feats, for new and younger players, as well as those who prefer a simpler game. I believe they've said that they intend to do just that.

 

[Talath]

They can always make a basic version of the game, without things like skills or feats, for new and younger players, as well as those who prefer a simpler game. I believe they've said that they intend to do just that.

If I am understanding you correctly, you would rather the foundation of what is D&D be built on something more complex than a basic version, rather than the basic version itself.

 

[Falling Icicle]

If I am understanding you correctly, you would rather the foundation of what is D&D be built on something more complex than a basic version, rather than the basic version itself.

When I talk about the "core" rules, I'm talking about the equivalent of the Player's Handbook of previous editions, the "normal" and complete version of the game. If they want to have a beginner's box or whatever that is simplified, I have no problem with that.

That said, I don't see what is so complicated about skills that a new player couldn't wrap their head around them. Even with skills and feats, DnDN is a pretty simple and easy to understand game compared to most of the RPGs I've ever played.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I also disagree. Skills should not be part of the default assumptions. It adds complexity that the game really doesn't need. I've been playing with a group for several months (all gamers, but new to tabletop RPG), and they still don't even really understand attack rolls yet.

I like classes giving you a couple free skills (rather than this new stuff that gives advantage on certain types of checks, this is exactly what I don't want to see: core rules that doesn't play well with skills and assumes that they don't exist.)

I think you've misunderstood the point of that change. They made that change so those features would play nicely with the skill system. Previously, you could get the same skill from multiple sources, so you had to choose a skill from the big list (thereby defeating the whole purpose of background skills, which is that you don't have to choose individual skills). Currently, you only get skills from backgrounds, and everything else layers on top of that.

 

[Talath]

Based on my own experiences, if you make the "normal" version of the rules something other than the "basic" version, most of the player base is going to skip it for the actual rules. I don't have evidence to support this, this is just my own personal experience.

It comes to a matter of product positioning. If the basic version is what is the foundation of D&D, everyone starts at the same level and everyone moves at their own pace. If you put a more complex version as the foundation, the basic version will look like a step backwards to some gamers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Count me as another vote for "Skills should be Core."

I've introduced many people to RPGs over the years, and the existence of skills and choosing them has yet to prove to be a conceptual stumbling block. IME, most people understand skills better than they understand medieval weapons, artificial rules for spellcasting, etc.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Based on my own experiences, if you make the "normal" version of the rules something other than the "basic" version, most of the player base is going to skip it for the actual rules. I don't have evidence to support this, this is just my own personal experience.

It comes to a matter of product positioning. If the basic version is what is the foundation of D&D, everyone starts at the same level and everyone moves at their own pace. If you put a more complex version as the foundation, the basic version will look like a step backwards to some gamers.

Okay, but if that foundation doesn't include things like skills and feats, which many, many people consider to be fundamental, must-have parts of their game, then those people are being left out in the cold. It also makes adventure design problematic. It's far easier to include things in the rules, and let people remove them if they don't like them, then not include them, and make people add them in.

IMO, the best way is to include skills and feats, and then put a sidebar or something giving options and explanations for how to exclude them if you don't want them. [Edit] They're already doing that with feats, by letting people take ability score increases instead. They should do something like that with skills, give people a simple thing that they can take instead.

 

[Talath]

Okay, but if that foundation doesn't include things like skills and feats, which many, many people consider to be fundamental, must-have parts of their game, then those people are being left out in the cold. It also makes adventure design problematic. It's far easier to include things in the rules, and let people remove them if they don't like them, then not include them, and make people add them in.

IMO, the best way is to include skills and feats, and then put a sidebar or something giving options and explanations for how to exclude them if you don't want them.

3rd edition D&D fights against the notion that its easier to include material so others can remove it, rather than start with a simple base and add as desired.

Either approach leaves players feeling left out in the cold, but one is decidedly more newbie friendly, and the other more veteran friendly.