D&D 5E Skills Should Be Core

[drothgery]

I think I pretty much agree with the OP. If you have a skill system in a D&D-ish game, and you're not trying to balance all classes in combat ala 4e, then the skill system is going to be pretty integral to how rogues and bards work (and not unimportant to rangers and druids). So you'd either have classes that become much weaker when skills aren't used, or classes that keep using skills when no one else does, neither of which is going to work all that well.

 

[Texicles]

...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.

Maybe I'm stupid.

I read the first 4+ pages of this thread under the impression that you wanted a skill system thrust upon all players and those who preferred a simpler system like ability checks would just have to deal. I can't help but think I'm not alone in having read it that way.

When these kinds of discussions happen, there's a real nebulous lexicon problem. "Basic," "Standard," Advanced," "core," "optional," "modular," et. al. get used in a sort of venn diagram of denotation, and it makes it really difficult for everyone to be on the same sheet of music. There's plenty of overlap, but none of these terms is strictly synonymous with any other. I'm almost as excited about this game going retail for having official nomenclature as I am to actually get and play with new books/rules.

Now on topic, I don't mind if the optional skill rules are included in the basic game, as long as they're optional. Truthfully though, I think that they're probably best suited to the standard ruleset. Basic is, in my understanding, supposed to be the version of DDN that you grab and go with, minimizing systemic options without infringing on gameplay ones. As such, basic should probably exclude systems like skills and feats, as the developers have stated that the game is intended to be playable without them.

However, as has been discussed in previous threads, it will be very important for the basic game to actually contain the kernels of the rules upon which the more complex versions of the game are built. That is to say, playing basic and then standard or advanced should feel like you're still playing the same game, just with added rules/complexity. Otherwise, you're just going to have a bogus, introductory incarnation of the game, skipped by many and insufficiently preparing those who use it prior to playing the "real" game.

None of this really speaks to the term "core" though. Some use core to mean basic because of the aforementioned importance of basic being the foundation upon which other rulesets are built. Others use core to mean standard because they believe that will be the default play style. Still others use core to mean stuff that's not optional, while others use it to describe whatever is included in the first book(s) of the edition. Since I don't really know what core is, I won't even bother speculating what should and shouldn't be included therein.

As for the fear of adventure modules being a) too simple, or b) filled with useless stuff, it strikes me as all hat and no cattle. There's no reason that an adventure module can't just include "Strength DC: X, Climb DC: Y" or some such. We're not talking about half a book full of content here. Sure, interfacing an adventure module with a castle-building module would take up a little more space, but thats unlikely to be as common as with/without skills/feats/etc.

 

[Kristopher]

I am totally agree with Falling

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

A very simple skill system should be part of the most basic form of the game. It doesn't need dozens of skills. It doesn't need skill points. But it should set the math range for a more complex skill system to be able to play at the same table.

 

[Cyberen]

You don't really need a numeric, consistent range if you use keyword-based outcomes.
It's a simple practice which guarantees some modularity in computer development, and could be ported with good effect to game design : Easy could be DC 10 for a d20 system, "DC" 8 for a pure ability score approach, or whatever "easy" outcome you could design throwing dice, coins, dragon bones, or drawing cards. You can even imagine a tiered system wher a Master would auto succeed Easy tasks.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Maybe I'm stupid.

I read the first 4+ pages of this thread under the impression that you wanted a skill system thrust upon all players and those who preferred a simpler system like ability checks would just have to deal. I can't help but think I'm not alone in having read it that way.

I guess that was a failure of communication on my part.

From the very first packet, we've been told that skills were optional, but were going to be included in the core rules. Lately, they've backtracked on that, and have made it sound like they won't be. That is why I am concerned.

[Edit] Here is the article I'm talking about http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130422

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Skills are something that most people have simply come to expect to be a part of the core rules of an RPG.

*Citation needed*

 

[Hussar]

*Citation needed*

Really?

Look at the top five selling RPG's. Which ones don't have skills?

Even D&D's had skills since 1988 as part of the core rules. I'm thinking that it's pretty standard in most RPG's at this point.

Other than some very, very basic RPG's, I'm struggling to think of RPG's that don't have some sort of skill rules.

 

[MJS]

I see no statement in the article of removing the skill system from the "core", so, whatevs. He said its an optional module, not that it wont be in the 3 books.

 

[Obryn]

Other than some very, very basic RPG's, I'm struggling to think of RPG's that don't have some sort of skill rules.

Most modern rpgs are skill-based or point-based rather than class/level, so that's maybe not a good metric.

I like one or the other, myself. Not both. I don't think class/level games need a particularly robust skill system.

-O