D&D 5E Skills Should Be Core

[ShinHakkaider]

It's not wrong for you to use APs, but when you're claiming that someone else is being "disgustingly arrogant and condescending" by implying that your way is "wrong" (as if it could be), why take a shot at people like me by implying that I just do it to massage my ego, and that I'm not as adult as you are?

There is LITERALLY no difference in dropping the PC's into a world of my own making and dropping them into the FR or GreyHawk or Golarion other than placating my own ego. And that's something that as an adult I'm well past.

That's what I wrote. I specifically used "my" because I was referring to ME. The sentence after that I use "I'm" because again I'm referring to ME.

Now, at what point did I take a shot at you and other people who like homebrews?

Take your time. I'll be over here waiting.

Also I'm gonna stand by my statement that he was being disgustingly condescending, because quite frankly he was. It's telling that he comes in and basically says that anyone who plays like this is doing it wrong and is a subpar GM who is betraying a social contract that as far as we know ONLY EXISTS IN HIS HEAD and your first thought is not to refute him but to attribute something to me that I never said.

Or maybe I did. Like I said, I'll be over here waiting...

 

[Obryn]

You can handle dungeons and dragons just fine. Only in a very simple way. Want to have the gazillion of spells and powers and whatever? Just use the optional combat module.
See how silly this is? Yet this is the actual situation you would want to put skills into.
And no, I do not buy this "skills are too complex". Combat is much more complex but suddenly, that isn't an issue any more.

If you want combat to be much more important than everything else, fine. But that will hardly gain you more players and instead drive even more of them away.
And thats why skills should be core. What is core defines how the game is played. There will of course be house rules, some of them optional modules, but every publication, every adventure and the living campaign will reference the core only.
So why shut out all players who want something more than dungeon crawl? Keep skills core and have a optional module for no skills.

Who in the world are you even replying to with these "simplicity" arguments? I'm coming from a game design angle. D&D's vibrant core is as a class/level game with strong archetypes. The more you add on - skills, feats, free multiclassing, wealth-by-level etc. - the more this core gets diluted and gradually devolves into a crappy implementation of a point-buy system. I'm good with class-specific (and race-specific) feats - anything that enhances the central character archetype - but the more generic fiddly bits you hang around that core, the less coherent your game design gets.

So when it comes to Skills, Fighters should do Fightery things, like riding, tactics, and feats of athleticism. Wizards should do Wizardy things, like knowing magical lore. Rogues/Thieves should do your basic skulduggery package. Bards should be great at the "face" stuff. And so on. This is the only reason to have classes and levels - to package all of these features up into neat, simple, discrete packages rather than fiddling around with point-buy.

But in answer to your second question - the rules of Dungeons and Dragons should mostly concern themselves with Dungeons (that is, exploration of dangerous places) and Dragons (that is, killing or outsmarting monsters and taking their stuff). That's the core of the game, and still as fun in 2013 as it was in 1974. So, yes, I absolutely think those sorts of tasks are more important than a fiddly skill system.

I don't want to shut out the players who want "more than a dungeon crawl," but that's why a modular system can be so interesting. Because those options can exist besides the basic ones.

-O

 

[JamesonCourage]

That's what I wrote. I specifically used "my" because I was referring to ME. The sentence after that I use "I'm" because again I'm referring to ME.

Now, at what point did I take a shot at you and other people who like homebrews?

Take your time. I'll be over here waiting.

You also prefaced your quote with "Players on average dont give a crap about the pages and pages of backstory that gets generated in a homebrew or the powerful NPC's that populate the world. If that stuff isnt incorporated into the game/story as it's being told then it's useless (at least to the Players and their PC's). Even running a published adventure there is STILL actual work to be done in making the adventure our own."

There was no "my players" in those sentences. And that's why I used the word "implication" instead of quoting you.

Also I'm gonna stand by my statement that he was being disgustingly condescending, because quite frankly he was. It's telling that he comes in and basically says that anyone who plays like this is doing it wrong and is a subpar GM who is betraying a social contract that as far as we know ONLY EXISTS IN HIS HEAD and your first thought is not to refute him but to attribute something to me that I never said.

Or maybe I did. Like I said, I'll be over here waiting...

First, I don't need to refute him; about four people jumped on what he said immediately. Second, I explicitly said the following: "No real call for all the "badwrongfun" and "onetrueway" feel to these posts, so far as I'm concerned. Neither of you are wrong, and neither am I. It's just play style." Part of that point, of course, was that you aren't wrong for playing the way you want to. Which, if he thinks you are, explicitly says that he's wrong, because you aren't. I also said the reverse is true; he's not wrong to play the way he wants to.

So, you can go on being offended all you want to, but leave me out of it, please and thank you. That's not why I popped into the thread. As always, play what you like

 

[ShinHakkaider]

So, you can go on being offended all you want to, but leave me out of it, please and thank you. That's not why I popped into the thread. As always, play what you like

I'm not offended but if you dont want to be engaged? Then DONT ENGAGE. You came at me specifically with attributing something to me that I never said. I corrected you and you came back with another dodge. You addressed something very specific that you attributed to me. I corrected you and now you came back with something almost completely different.

Like I said, I'm not offended but dont get all righteous when you call someone out and they address your response directly and prove you mistaken.

And now I'm done talking about this.

Youre right about one thing, people should ABSOLUTELY play what they like.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I challenge the argument that skills don't fit with the class based nature of D&D.

There are three aspects to skills. The first is that training and experience in an activity can grant you a bonus in addition to what you get from your ability score. The second is a list of individual skills. The third is the ability to individually select ranks for those skills

The first point presents no conflict whatsoever with a class based system. The second is merely a system for classifying actions. Just as differing classes have different attack bonuses, different classes could get different skill bonuses.

Only the third part is in conflict with the nature of a class based system. And it can and should be optional.

In my mind, the only question is in regard to the number and breadth of skills in the basic game. I absolutely think that characters should have skill based bonuses to categories of actions.

 

[Obryn]

I challenge the argument that skills don't fit with the class based nature of D&D.

There are three aspects to skills. The first is that training and experience in an activity can grant you a bonus in addition to what you get from your ability score. The second is a list of individual skills. The third is the ability to individually select ranks for those skills

The first point presents no conflict whatsoever with a class based system. The second is merely a system for classifying actions. Just as differing classes have different attack bonuses, different classes could get different skill bonuses.

Only the third part is in conflict with the nature of a class based system. And it can and should be optional.

In my mind, the only question is in regard to the number and breadth of skills in the basic game. I absolutely think that characters should have skill based bonuses to categories of actions.

I don't think that's at all incompatible with what I'm saying. Upthread, I proposed this:

Now, with that said, I'm coming to recognize [skills] as a necessary evil because I know it can be helpful to have an actual out-of-combat resolution system as opposed to simple DM fiat or "uhh, roll 5-6 on a d6 and it works." I just want it to be as simple as possible. So my proposal is to take two factors...

(1) Class, or even better, something like "class focus." So, for example, you break Fighters down into Knights, Tribal Warriors, Swashbucklers, etc. Break Wizards down into "independent scholar," "pact-binder," "apprentice," etc.
(2) Background, which is class-agnostic. Blacksmith, city watch, herbalist, etc.

When you're rolling something non-combat that is relevant to either factor, you get a bonus to the roll. Say, you get an applicable stat bonus, a level-based bonus so you actually improve, and Advantage if you're "trained." DCs need not be very high; 5/10/15 for most tasks should be adequate. And boom! A working non-combat resolution system.

...Which isn't really that far removed from what you're saying. Where we differ is that I don't really like defined skill lists. I don't think it's a necessary categorization in the system. I'd rather keep things open-ended.

-O

 

[Derren]

Who in the world are you even replying to with these "simplicity" arguments? I'm coming from a game design angle. D&D's vibrant core is as a class/level game with strong archetypes. The more you add on - skills, feats, free multiclassing, wealth-by-level etc. - the more this core gets diluted and gradually devolves into a crappy implementation of a point-buy system. I'm good with class-specific (and race-specific) feats - anything that enhances the central character archetype - but the more generic fiddly bits you hang around that core, the less coherent your game design gets.

So when it comes to Skills, Fighters should do Fightery things, like riding, tactics, and feats of athleticism. Wizards should do Wizardy things, like knowing magical lore. Rogues/Thieves should do your basic skulduggery package. Bards should be great at the "face" stuff. And so on. This is the only reason to have classes and levels - to package all of these features up into neat, simple, discrete packages rather than fiddling around with point-buy.

But in answer to your second question - the rules of Dungeons and Dragons should mostly concern themselves with Dungeons (that is, exploration of dangerous places) and Dragons (that is, killing or outsmarting monsters and taking their stuff). That's the core of the game, and still as fun in 2013 as it was in 1974. So, yes, I absolutely think those sorts of tasks are more important than a fiddly skill system.

I don't want to shut out the players who want "more than a dungeon crawl," but that's why a modular system can be so interesting. Because those options can exist besides the basic ones.

-O

The only reason for leaving out skills as optional is the complexity issue. If they fit into a level based system depends on their implementation.
D&D being mainly about dungeons and killing stuff in them? Yeah, "back to the dungeon" worked out really well for D&D didn't it? And unless D&D wants to lose even more players they should make the core rules so that many people can enjoy them by default instead of just a small subset. And that means including skills in the core rules.

A optional module which has to be added by the DM is in the end just a glorified houserule. It will be represented in one book and then it will be forgotten. Every further book will not reference it and adventures not use it which means more work for the DM. And if optional rules are included the core players will get angry to have to pay for optional stuff they don't use and complain about the wasted space. Not to mention that it becomes a real nightmare when you have to include multiple optional modules. In the end, the core rules without optional modules will be what is supported by WotC.


Optional modules should therefor be downgrades.
Downgrades are much faster to apply on the fly and do not need special attention when writing further products. And the players can choose what they want and still be core instead of having their favorite element of the game being dismissed as optional stuff that doesn't really belong to D&D like you are just currently doing it with skills resulting in more and happy customers.

Ask yourself. You are quite insistent that a complex combat system is part of core D&D. Now would you be more satisfied when the complex combat is core with an optional rule to make it simpler if you want or if only the simple combat version is core and the full combat system you know from the playtest is optional?

 

[Obryn]

The only reason for leaving out skills as optional is the complexity issue. If they fit into a level based system depends on their implementation.

No, I think it's incoherent. Not too hard.

D&D being mainly about dungeons and killing stuff in them? Yeah, "back to the dungeon" worked out really well for D&D didn't it? And unless D&D wants to lose even more players they should make the core rules so that many people can enjoy them by default instead of just a small subset. And that means including skills in the core rules.

...you do know "Back to the Dungeon!" was the 3e tagline, don't you?

A optional module which has to be added by the DM is in the end just a glorified houserule. It will be represented in one book and then it will be forgotten. Every further book will not reference it and adventures not use it which means more work for the DM. And if optional rules are included the core players will get angry to have to pay for optional stuff they don't use and complain about the wasted space. Not to mention that it becomes a real nightmare when you have to include multiple optional modules. In the end, the core rules without optional modules will be what is supported by WotC.

Optional modules should therefor be downgrades.
Downgrades are much faster to apply on the fly and do not need special attention when writing further products. And the players can choose what they want and still be core instead of having their favorite element of the game being dismissed as optional stuff that doesn't really belong to D&D like you are just currently doing it with skills resulting in more and happy customers.

Again, you're in a world of your own here. Optional modules can easily be referenced down the road. Look at 2e; NWPs were optional. Then they were assumed for all the Complete X books - that is, most of the whole core game line - and every single released setting.

Ask yourself. You are quite insistent that a complex combat system is part of core D&D.

No, I'm not insistent on complexity. I think it should be easier to run than 3e or 4e, in the core. So again - who are you even responding to?

Otherwise, I'm pretty firm on my belief that combat and exploration are a lot more important to Dungeons and Dragons than non-combat, non-exploration (and thus non-dungeon and non-dragon) task resolution.

-O

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I don't think that's at all incompatible with what I'm saying. Upthread, I proposed this:



...Which isn't really that far removed from what you're saying. Where we differ is that I don't really like defined skill lists. I don't think it's a necessary categorization in the system. I'd rather keep things open-ended.

-O

While I could mostly get behind such a system, I think a little more structure would be a benefit. I've recently been a proponent of skills like Interaction or Exploration, that encompass a wide variety of things and are easy to apply. My skill list would look something like:

Craft: Mechanical actions, such as disabling traps, using a rope, forging a sword, etc.
Exploration: Survival skills, climbing, stealth, tracking, etc.
Interaction: Social skills, gathering rumors, deducing lies, ect.
Lore: Knowledge gained through study and experience.

This would allow each class to excel in different areas, without too much complication.

 

[ExploderWizard]

While I could mostly get behind such a system, I think a little more structure would be a benefit. I've recently been a proponent of skills like Interaction or Exploration, that encompass a wide variety of things and are easy to apply. My skill list would look something like:

Craft: Mechanical actions, such as disabling traps, using a rope, forging a sword, etc.
Exploration: Survival skills, climbing, stealth, tracking, etc.
Interaction: Social skills, gathering rumors, deducing lies, ect.
Lore: Knowledge gained through study and experience.

This would allow each class to excel in different areas, without too much complication.

Not a terrible idea at all, but the question then becomes: if the skill packages are so broad why not just roll them into class abilities?

IMHO the only reason to have individual skills is the granularity of picking individual areas of focus. Your simplified list is ideal for class ability packages and wouldn't require a skill subsystem to implement.

The same goes for feats actually. Any subsystem of menu options will become bloated and unmanageable over time.