Skills - what is your preference

[FinalSonicX]

I'd prefer a slimmed down system similar to 3.X or Pathfinder, but not slimmed down as much as 4e. I want less specific skills enumerated explicitly like Use Rope and things like that but rather I'd want a fairly slim core list with a bit of room to fill in a few others if we like.

I don't want things like Disguise and Sleight of Hand consolidated down into things like Thievery or Deception (along with Bluff) or something, since to me these are fairly niche skills but not something that every person trained in deception might know. I do NOT have an issue having listen, spot, and search being consolidated, nor do I mind hide and move silently being consolidated (much like PF). I'd prefer no skill additions if it can helped though - no Fly skill like in PF, I dislike that.

In other words, keep the idea of skills around as in 3.X but have them slimmed down a bit and try to keep the total numbers a bit lower - I'd like that. Of course, DDN looks like it will be modular, so this is just what I'd like to see one module look like.

 

[mach1.9pants]

EDIT: ignore that I see there is another transcript I haven't read, BBL

I seem to have brushede right over this in reading all the seminars, can some one pull out the (in)exact quotes/tweets/whatevers?

 

[TerraDave]

As the two previous posters have touched on...I am sure we will see ways to get better at climbing, and being stealthy, and maybe handling animals, crafting things, or using rope.

But it will be tied to other charecter elements. The checks themselves will probably be spelled out with the abilities, with additional guidance in the DMG.

 

[Oni]

I would like my characters to be broadly competent rather than afraid to try anything because their skill list is so narrow (3e Fighter and Cleric, I'm lookin' at you). So, based on what we've heard so far, I"m quite happy with their solution. I would have also been happy with something like Barbarians of Lemuria which lets you buy up background professions and be competent in any skill that falls under that background relative to your investment, so if you bought up hunter you'd use that to roll whatever was reasonably related to that background like tracking, and sneaking, and setting simple snares, and perception, et c.

 

[Nivenus]

My preferred method would be to have the simplicity of 4e's skill system, wit the diversity of 3e's. For example, I think it makes sense to compress highly similar skills like Hide and Move Silently into one "Stealth" skill, but I think 4e does this overzealously, effectively cutting out skills that don't fit neatly into 4e's reduce skill list. Where's the equivalent of Perform or Crafting, for example?

All in all, though, 5e's skill system intrigues me and I'll be willing to give it a try. At best, it'll accomplish more or less what I want anyway: a skill system that's easy to use and doesn't detract from the class system but which at the same time allows characters to branch out and customize their abilities. At worst, it'll be oversimplified, but I can live with that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

depends a bit on how it is exactly done. It is intersting to read... sounds a bit like hackmaster, which i happened to read the quick start rules today...

attack roll vs saving roll... classes give bonuses to ability scores... I definitively want to see more to make an educated decision If I like all of that or not.

Having read the whole article, I rather like the way it is handled... interestingly, races give +1 to a stat, which tells us, that the bonus to attack rolls can´t go up every 2 points of an ability score.

 

[grimslade]

Shilling for Skills

IMNSHO, 3E skills were ridiculous, too many skills and too many bonuses. It was a subsystem that rewarded hyperfocus and ignoring skills that would be advantageous outside of the adventure. It created more problems than it solved.
The shrunken skill list in 4E made the problem worse in some ways because you could now focus on skill groups to gain ridiculous advantage.
I feel like a Wizards shill, but I like this stripped down version of skills better, so far. Beta rules will tell, but I think you can get through a skill challenge easier with natural abilities and a few bonuses. The task is important not all the synergy bonuses and ranks and etc. I like reducing the roll to enhance the role. Ability check +skill bonus Go!

 

[Wormwood]

Last month I ran Microlite74 for a few people, and the 5e version is essentially what I used. During chargen I asked everyone about their backgrounds. My nephew was a soldier/deserter, my wife was a con-artist.

They could pretty much do whatever they wanted in non-stressful/plot-critical situations (I'm a big fan or say Yes), but when their bacon was on the line, they would roll d20 + stat vs my arbitrary TN. +2 if they were trying something related to their class, +2 for something related to their background.

I like it and it went very smoothly.

 

[Rhenny]

I also like what I've heard about the basic attribute plus modifier if you have knowledge or enhancement in a specific task. I think this will allow some groups to play it simply (just using the attributes), and others to add more specific modifiers for situational advancement. If there is a large list of options, and PCs can spend points as they level, this will give opportunities to make a more interesting PC.

There is at least on thing I am worried about. If the DCs for tasks (or whatever they call it in D&D Next - Novice, Expert, whatever) scale with levels, this might force the thief player to always spend points in thievery and stealth; therefore, the addition of points and different skills would be moot since the player is "forced" to spend discretionary points on class/role specific skills.

 

[Ahnehnois]

There is at least on thing I am worried about. If the DCs for tasks (or whatever they call it in D&D Next - Novice, Expert, whatever) scale with levels, this might force the thief player to always spend points in thievery and stealth; therefore, the addition of points and different skills would be moot since the player is "forced" to spend discretionary points on class/role specific skills.

That would indeed be a disaster. Your bonus should be how good you are. The DC should be how hard the task is. That has nothing to do with how good you are.

Thankfully, I got the sense from the transcripts that this was not the case (though I haven't found the exact quote I thought I remembered that supported this).