D&D 5E Skills Should Be Core

[Falling Icicle]

Wrong on how DC were set. As stated in one of the first issue of Dragon covering 3e, the 3e skill DCs were based upon what WOTC called the "commoner standard" which is how difficult it would be for someone with no bonus from race, ability scores, class, skill, etc, to perform the action in question.

That may have been their intent, and with some skills, it is true that you don't need a lot of ranks, or even any, to have a decent chance of success. But there are many skills where that is not the case. Opening an average lock, according to their list of examples, is DC 25, making it flat out impossible for someone with a 10 ability score and no skill ranks. Even with 5 skill ranks, they'd fail on anything but a roll of 20. Then there are skills which rely on opposed checks, like listen vs. move silently, and many opponents have such high bonuses that if you don't have max ranks in the skill, you might as well not bother trying.

This is off-topic, but has anyone compared the DC table in 3.x to Next? http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#difficultyClass. The DCs in Next are typically 5 points higher than their 3rd edition equivalents (with the exception of nearly impossible which is 5 points lower). This is quite bizarre considering that characters in 3.x could achieve much, much higher bonuses than characters in Next can. This makes accomplishing tasks much more difficult in Next, especially when you consider that skills aren't even going to be in play for some groups. I've said it before and I'll say it again, they need to reduce the suggested DCs by 5 across the board, and this isn't just based on comparisons to 3rd edition, but also the math as it exists now. I don't think it's right for an average person to fail an "easy" action nearly half of the time.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Nonsense. The subsystems just need to be as isolated as they are in AD&D, which is pretty much mandatory for a truly modular system.

Even though Non-Weapon Proficiencies in AD&D were optional, they were still included in the core rulebook, were supported in adventures and included in the stats of NPCs. That is all I want from Next. Include skills as an option in the core rulebook and support them in future books. Then everyone wins. Those who want skills have them supported, and those who don't can easily ignore them.

 

[Derren]

Nonsense. The subsystems just need to be as isolated as they are in AD&D, which is pretty much mandatory for a truly modular system.

-O

And how many AD&D adventures used those subsystems? And only one subsystem or multiple ones?
By the way, do you remember Basic D&D which did run alongside AD&D which pretty much mirrors what some people suggest here? Did TSR made money with it after AD&D came out?

 

[Obryn]

And how many AD&D adventures used those subsystems? Multiple ones?
By the way, do you remember Basic D&D which did run alongside AD&D which pretty much mirrors what some people suggest here? Did TSR made money with it?

BECMI was competing with AD&D 1e, which didn't have a skill system in core. It was found in Oriental Adventures and the Survival Guides, neither of which took the D&D world by storm. And by all accounts, BX and BECMI made plenty; the red boxes were the best selling products of all time, iirc, with more players than any other product.

So if you're asserting that Basic was somehow a failure and that it was because of skills, you're wrong in at least two ways.

NWPs were standard in 2e, despite being presented as "optional."

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

This is off-topic, but has anyone compared the DC table in 3.x to Next? http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#difficultyClass. The DCs in Next are typically 5 points higher than their 3rd edition equivalents (with the exception of nearly impossible which is 5 points lower). This is quite bizarre considering that characters in 3.x could achieve much, much higher bonuses than characters in Next can. This makes accomplishing tasks much more difficult in Next, especially when you consider that skills aren't even going to be in play for some groups. I've said it before and I'll say it again, they need to reduce the suggested DCs by 5 across the board, and this isn't just based on comparisons to 3rd edition, but also the math as it exists now. I don't think it's right for an average person to fail an "easy" action nearly half of the time.

It is a lot easier to get rerolls in 5e than in 3e. It's harder to conceptualize the benefit of advantage (vs a flat bonus), but it's pretty big. And, by and larger many of those DCs were pretty generous. Not sure that fix is needed.

 

[GX.Sigma]

1. A big part of the players like optional module X
2. As X is not core, it is never referenced in any published adventures or other products.
3. People do not buy those products because its too much work to figure X into it and rather design their adventures themselves or get 3rd party books

Alternatively:
2a. Recognizing the popularity of X, future books all have variants for their rules with and without X, decreasing the value one gets with the book as information is printed twice

Not what I meant.

Take skills, for example. Why do adventures or settings need to reference the skills system? Can you think of any situation where such a product would want to refer to the skills system?

For that matter, even if it's optional, who's saying they won't? If it makes sense to reference the skills system, they can (that's why it's a "standard" rule and not an "advanced" rule)--like how Planescape introduced a new NWP for chaos shaping.

I don't think it's right for an average person to fail an "easy" action nearly half of the time.

The idea is that most people take 10 all the time. Only in tense situations do you actually need to roll for an easy task.

 

[Falling Icicle]

It is a lot easier to get rerolls in 5e than in 3e. It's harder to conceptualize the benefit of advantage (vs a flat bonus), but it's pretty big. And, by and larger many of those DCs were pretty generous. Not sure that fix is needed.

Advantage makes lower DC tasks a bit easier, but it doesn't enable you to succeed at more difficult tasks because it doesn't increase the maximum possible number you can get on your check. If you have a +3 bonus on your roll, for example, the highest you can get is 23, with or without advantage. I actually like that, as it is a good way to give players a bonus without number inflation. But with that in mind, the suggested DCs seem too high to me.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Take skills, for example. Why do adventures or settings need to reference the skills system? Can you think of any situation where such a product would want to refer to the skills system?

Yes. Adventure books say what kinds of checks players should make all the time. "This trap is DC X to find." "Gathering information in this town can provide the players with the following info." Etc. If those things are labeled everywhere as just a "Wisdom check" or "Charisma check", DMs may run into confusion about what skill(s) should apply. Some are pretty easy to figure out, like disable device for traps. Other things aren't quite so clear. More importantly, though, I think it's of paramount importance that the system math be built to accommodate skills, so that it doesn't change from one table to another. The suggestion of adding +5 to all the DCs if you use skills is an example of exactly what I don't want to see.

For that matter, even if it's optional, who's saying they won't? If it makes sense to reference the skills system, they can (that's why it's a "standard" rule and not an "advanced" rule)--like how Planescape introduced a new NWP for chaos shaping.

NWP were optional, but they were still in the PHB. That's why you saw things like that reference them. Had they been in some other supplement, I doubt they would have been referenced much, if at all, in other books.

The idea is that most people take 10 all the time. Only in tense situations do you actually need to roll for an easy task.

I guess that makes sense, though, doesn't that mean that an average person, taking 10, is only barely succeeding at the "easy" task? If you have an 8 ability score, or lower, you can't succeed without rolling. Is an "easy" task something a slightly below average person should really fail at when they "take 10?"

 

[Cyberen]

I remember rolling under my ability score quite often in BECM(I) and ADD, so I would say they have a non combat resolution system. At least, it was straightforward !
d20 is the worst skill system ever designed : fiddly (so many numbers to track/choices to be made), clunky(math CAN'T be sound in such a system), not satisfactory unless system mastery is a goal in itself. I totally understand Next is going to keep on supporting it for legacy reasons, so it's npt going to die in a fire. 4e system is quite less fidly, but its math has been proven clunky in skill challenges and other areas...
I think D&D unfortunately painted itself in a corner, and the "back to basics" approach wotc is taking is the actually the only one possible.
A good implementation of it would enable the adventure design to reference checks by difficulty keywords (such as Easy, Moderate,...) and expecting the action resolution system to provide such a keyword. How it does it should be left to the chosen system.
(I really liked when the playtest defined skills as free descriptors not linked to any specific ability score, but ymmv)

 

[Weather Report]

I am pleased that Skills (and Feats) are strictly optional, they were not needed in pre-3rd Ed, but are a great option (NWP in 2nd Ed, etc).