UngeheuerLich
Legend
scaling DC´s with level was a terrible Idea in 4e. (Yes, it is handy... and I use it... but I always convinve myself first, that the challenge is indeed appropriate to the character level... and worth that DC)
Skills - what is your preference
- Thread starter Sammael
- Start date
Jack7
First Post
I don't really know anything about the 5E Skill system yet. This is how we do skills. Skills are handled like real human skills. Players can use their own real world skills in-game, as long as they are appropriate skills (there is no call for computer work in my setting).
We role play, or players demonstrate their skill use, for almost every skill. If they wanna roll they can, but almost never do. It's aback-up option they rarely play. Unless 5E comes up with a real improvement over role playing skills or some interesting new system I've not seen we'll stick with that, as everyone likes it that way.
I do like the idea of simplicity, but not skill-stasis, if that is what is really implied, which I don't know. If it's simple but flexible though, and allows for improvements with practice, training, experience, and time, then that'll be good by me.
We role play, or players demonstrate their skill use, for almost every skill. If they wanna roll they can, but almost never do. It's aback-up option they rarely play. Unless 5E comes up with a real improvement over role playing skills or some interesting new system I've not seen we'll stick with that, as everyone likes it that way.
I do like the idea of simplicity, but not skill-stasis, if that is what is really implied, which I don't know. If it's simple but flexible though, and allows for improvements with practice, training, experience, and time, then that'll be good by me.
After having played 4e for years now, I had a nostalgic twinge and pulled out Baldurs Gate 2 (IMHO STILL the greatest CRPG every made).
I couldnt help but think to myself that through all the evolution through 3.0 to 3.5 to 4e (and PF if thats your stick) that something in D&D's simplicity was lost. 2e wasn't super elegant, but it didn't need to be. It wasn't the rules that made it, it was the players and the game.
4e just felt like all of the rules were getting in the way of having fun (dont get me wrong, it was great while it lasted, but it did leave a bitter taste).
Im looking forward to their looking back, and the skill system (as much as I have advocated it over the years) being "rolled back" to a simpler time.
I couldnt help but think to myself that through all the evolution through 3.0 to 3.5 to 4e (and PF if thats your stick) that something in D&D's simplicity was lost. 2e wasn't super elegant, but it didn't need to be. It wasn't the rules that made it, it was the players and the game.
4e just felt like all of the rules were getting in the way of having fun (dont get me wrong, it was great while it lasted, but it did leave a bitter taste).
Im looking forward to their looking back, and the skill system (as much as I have advocated it over the years) being "rolled back" to a simpler time.
BryonD
Hero
I see it this way as well.
If I need to add something to core to get what I want, no problem.
But, again, the final product will be required to EXCEED what I have now to get me to switch.
So it will need to be absolutely seamless. Which certainly isn't impossible. Still waiting to see.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Not really sure what I want.
I want a system that is easy to use and resolve.
I want the ability to decide what sorts of things my character is best at.
I want a system that rewards my character for getting more experienced, and rewards a specialist in an area more than a generalist in an area.
I want a system that doesn't punish a character in general skills that everyone should be able to do (climb, swim, basic knowledge, etc).
What's the best way to encompass all of those things? I'm not sure.
I want a system that is easy to use and resolve.
I want the ability to decide what sorts of things my character is best at.
I want a system that rewards my character for getting more experienced, and rewards a specialist in an area more than a generalist in an area.
I want a system that doesn't punish a character in general skills that everyone should be able to do (climb, swim, basic knowledge, etc).
What's the best way to encompass all of those things? I'm not sure.
mach1.9pants
Hero
^Me too, I want my cake and eat it. I would've XP'd you but ENW is on a go slow (arrgh) and it doesn't appear to work for me.
I generally think rule for specific skills generally tend to discourage players to try to solve puzzles. If you link non-combat actions to skills, you generally get these problems:
1) People don't attempt something unless their skills are maxed, so attempts to think outside the box are generally shut down hard.
ie. "I want my barbarian to creep up to some guards and clunk their heads together." Sorry, you don't have stealth trained so they'll probably see you, and you'll never train in it because you'd have to be worse at what you can do and are expected to do to fulfill your party role. This is especially bad when your class doesn't give you many skill points.
2) Exclusive skills generally tend to mean that characters do non-combat actions apart rather than together (ie. Stealth). If you can get help from your friends when doing combat, but you are stuck all by yourself trying to skillfully solve a situation, is it any wonder players try to carve their way through everything?
3) Skills can often replace problem solving rather than encouraging it. I've already spoken often about how "Diplomacy" becomes a magic "I win, do what I say button" without any roleplaying support. But the case can be made for any skill that it discourages looking at each situation carefully and trying to figure out the best way forward.
So I picked the castles and crusades option in the poll.
-------------------------------------------------
For 5e, I definately have to think about this. It reminds me a lot of how 2e NWP were used in actual play (at least in my groups). In 2e you got so few non-weapon proficiencies that no character could possibly function on just those few specialized skills, so generally it defaulted to ability checks anyway. Thus there was no particular reason to have proficiencies on your character sheet except to remind you that you knew herbalism, or could brew beer, or you could train horses. If you needed the party to ride across country, you still allowed them to ride cross country even though only one of them had the ride proficiency (using dexterity or constitution checks).
The thing is, those reminders were very useful, and was something that the 3e/4e skill system (being very broad and general) tend to discourage specific applications of the skills. You could use perception to read lips for example, but I've never seen anyone try to read lips in the 12 years since 3e has hit the shelves.
So if you have a Wisdom (+4 read lips) skill system, I think simply having that bonus on the character sheet will encourage the player to read lips. So I think this is pretty much a better implementation of the non-weapon proficiency system than we got in 2e.
1) People don't attempt something unless their skills are maxed, so attempts to think outside the box are generally shut down hard.
ie. "I want my barbarian to creep up to some guards and clunk their heads together." Sorry, you don't have stealth trained so they'll probably see you, and you'll never train in it because you'd have to be worse at what you can do and are expected to do to fulfill your party role. This is especially bad when your class doesn't give you many skill points.
2) Exclusive skills generally tend to mean that characters do non-combat actions apart rather than together (ie. Stealth). If you can get help from your friends when doing combat, but you are stuck all by yourself trying to skillfully solve a situation, is it any wonder players try to carve their way through everything?
3) Skills can often replace problem solving rather than encouraging it. I've already spoken often about how "Diplomacy" becomes a magic "I win, do what I say button" without any roleplaying support. But the case can be made for any skill that it discourages looking at each situation carefully and trying to figure out the best way forward.
So I picked the castles and crusades option in the poll.
-------------------------------------------------
For 5e, I definately have to think about this. It reminds me a lot of how 2e NWP were used in actual play (at least in my groups). In 2e you got so few non-weapon proficiencies that no character could possibly function on just those few specialized skills, so generally it defaulted to ability checks anyway. Thus there was no particular reason to have proficiencies on your character sheet except to remind you that you knew herbalism, or could brew beer, or you could train horses. If you needed the party to ride across country, you still allowed them to ride cross country even though only one of them had the ride proficiency (using dexterity or constitution checks).
The thing is, those reminders were very useful, and was something that the 3e/4e skill system (being very broad and general) tend to discourage specific applications of the skills. You could use perception to read lips for example, but I've never seen anyone try to read lips in the 12 years since 3e has hit the shelves.
So if you have a Wisdom (+4 read lips) skill system, I think simply having that bonus on the character sheet will encourage the player to read lips. So I think this is pretty much a better implementation of the non-weapon proficiency system than we got in 2e.
Whereas I think it is a great feature of the game - it is part of the whole "levels as a steady transformation of the backdrop and context of play" vibe of 4e.
But I'm one of those who voted in the poll for the D&Dnext approach. It strikes me as a fine way to do skills in D&D, particularly if level scaling is being signficantly pulled back.
Grazzt
Demon Lord
Agreed. I'm good with C&C/AD&D 1e/2e style problem solving or the style mentioned in the seminar earlier. Skill lists can go away...or at least be relegated to some optional module for added complexity.
Similar Threads
- Poll
