Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fuindordm" data-source="post: 6735120" data-attributes="member: 5435">This version of D&amp;D is very different from previous versions with respect to skill checks.&nbsp; In 2nd and 3rd edition (and rolemaster), skills were RESTRICTIVE: you needed a proficiency and decent bonus to have a chance of succeeding. This seems natural to simulationists, but can have an undesirable effect on the game, in that players don't bother trying to do things if they don't have the skill. For example, Blog the fighter doesn't even try to sneak past the guard, even though it makes sense in the story to do so, because Blog's player knows that he's only rolling d20+0 against a likely DC of 15.In 5th edition, skills are PERMISSIVE: any PC is assumed to be broadly competent. They've been adventuring a while, they know the basics of sneaking, and bandaging a bleeding wound, and how to recognize drinkable water in the wilderness. They've heard rumors of fantastic beasts and swapped stories with other adventurers about magic spells and traps.&nbsp; So the system does not penalize anyone for attempting any skill. And at first level, the difference between a skilled PC and an unskilled PC is not huge (but it is noticeable). In the game, players are also more likely to try actions that don't match their formal training.Personally, after years of laboring under 3E and its DC escalation, I prefer the second approach.&nbsp; I want my players to try things that make sense in the story, without looking at their character sheets and thinking &quot;I have ranks in Survival and Bluff.&nbsp; These don't really apply, so I guess I'll let someone else take the lead.&quot;As for Jack of All Trades, you're right that it's a minor benefit at low levels. But if you want 5th edition to lean more towards the restrictive skills, I would suggest a small house rule that only PCs trained in a skill can attempt DCs greater than 15, and that Jack of All Trades counts as training for this purpose.Cheers,Ben</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fuindordm, post: 6735120, member: 5435"] This version of D&D is very different from previous versions with respect to skill checks. In 2nd and 3rd edition (and rolemaster), skills were RESTRICTIVE: you needed a proficiency and decent bonus to have a chance of succeeding. This seems natural to simulationists, but can have an undesirable effect on the game, in that players don't bother trying to do things if they don't have the skill. For example, Blog the fighter doesn't even try to sneak past the guard, even though it makes sense in the story to do so, because Blog's player knows that he's only rolling d20+0 against a likely DC of 15. In 5th edition, skills are PERMISSIVE: any PC is assumed to be broadly competent. They've been adventuring a while, they know the basics of sneaking, and bandaging a bleeding wound, and how to recognize drinkable water in the wilderness. They've heard rumors of fantastic beasts and swapped stories with other adventurers about magic spells and traps. So the system does not penalize anyone for attempting any skill. And at first level, the difference between a skilled PC and an unskilled PC is not huge (but it is noticeable). In the game, players are also more likely to try actions that don't match their formal training. Personally, after years of laboring under 3E and its DC escalation, I prefer the second approach. I want my players to try things that make sense in the story, without looking at their character sheets and thinking "I have ranks in Survival and Bluff. These don't really apply, so I guess I'll let someone else take the lead." As for Jack of All Trades, you're right that it's a minor benefit at low levels. But if you want 5th edition to lean more towards the restrictive skills, I would suggest a small house rule that only PCs trained in a skill can attempt DCs greater than 15, and that Jack of All Trades counts as training for this purpose. Cheers, Ben [/QUOTE]

Verification