Skills... WoTC Blog Post

[Scribble]

I got mad skillz yo

Another blog entry about skills... Not a ton we don't already know. (Maybe nothing we didn't already know?)

Sounds like the auto success thing is out though?

 

[Jack Daniel]

RE: auto-success, not necessarily. I might very well be proven wrong next week, but I strongly suspect the following:

- Assuming that 5e retains the same ability modifier table as other d20 system games, and skill training initially grants at most a +2 bonus, that means that a starting character will hardly ever have a bonus much higher than +6 or +7 in a skill. Depending on how attributes rise and further skill training stacks (and how magic items work), it's entirely possible that skill checks will top out in the +10 to +15 range (which is great, because I don't ever want to play a game where you can have a bonus of +20 or higher on a d20 roll).

- Carrying on with this idea of "flatter math", DCs for checks will probably be standard, as they were supposed to be in principle in 3rd edition (but had to be inflated dramatically in practice, to account for the ease of acquiring a +30 bonus in random skill X). Something like DC 10 easy, DC 15 moderate, DC 20 difficult, DC 25 epic.

- If this is the case, it's trivially easy to allow auto-success when the key ability score itself (modifiers and skill bonuses aside) actually surpasses the DC of the task involved. Rolling a STR check to bash down a DC 15 door? If you have STR 18, never mind rolling 1d20+4, your STR is just plain high enough to do it. And then you'll never see the problem where your STR 18 fighter somehow failed to bash down the door, only to have the STR 13 cleric give it a shot and succeed on a fluke.

 

[Mattachine]

Love the two trait examples, Language and Workshop. They aren't the same power level, they aren't really even quite the same category of trait.

Who cares? Both allow a player to create the desired PC. I also love the idea that some things have to be worked out on a case-by-case basis. Rules aren't going to cover everything, so it's better to admit that in the design explicitly.

 

[Minigiant]

I just hope that they make the math right so a city cleric isn't a better lookout than a rogue or ranger or a wizard is a better lock pick than a robe thief because of their high ability score.

If I have to give my rogue thief high intelligent to disarm traps and pick locks, I will be very very upset.

 

[hayek]

I like it - having freedom to describe a skill bonus however the designer feels is appropriate for the flavor of the situation is a huge plus. with pre-defined lists in the past, it never made sense to me that if you were an expertly trained climber (i.e. high Athletics) you were automatically an awesome swimmer as well... or if you were super-knowledgeable about YOUR religion (i.e. high Knowledge-Religion) you were automatically knowledgeable about all religions and the nature of undead, demons, and devils

 

[Mengu]

This is stuff we do every day in every edition. You're czar, you have a palace and servants. You are an alchemist, you own a potion shop, and have an assistant. You are a pterodactyl trainer, you have a pterodactyl farm. Work out the details with your DM.

No edition of D&D (or any other RPG) has told me I can't tell my DM what my character is attempting, and have him figure out how to resolve it. I disagree with the author on "limiting" character sheets. Do I comb through my character sheet every now and then to come up with ideas? Sure, but it's a tool not a straight jacket.

I'm sorry but just because someone is dexterous doesn't mean they can dance well. Just because someone is smart, doesn't mean they know calculus. Training accounts for a heck of a lot more than natural talent (or a +2). I know it's abstract, and I'm not a simulationist, but my noble czar wizard is going to be better at the court dances than the street urchin rogue kid who is more dexterous, and the templar paladin who is more charismatic.

I much prefer the 3e method of skills (not to mention a zillion other rpg's that use skill ranks). I don't understand why they are trying to reinvent the wheel on skills. Use what works.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I like the idea of ability scores covering basically everything a PC can do. It's solid.

Though it strikes me that skills and perks in this model become potentially wildly different in their power rating. A skill that adds a +2 bonus to basically any interaction check and a skill that adds a +2 bonus to sailing a ship or something are going to be very different in terms of breadth of application, which can lead to the "I have this +2 bonus to all of my die rolls, thus making me more powerful, because I chose the correct broad background" phenomenon.

Totally possible to design around that, with some rigid ideas in place about the scope of a skill or perk, but it's the risk I think you face when making something that open-ended: sooner or later, the "best" rise to the top, and the rest get dropped (see: 3e and 4e feats).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Sounds about as far from the 3E skill system as it can get, which is a good thing. Hard to really comment on this without the rate of skill acquisition.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In principle, this seems sound. A skill list is a straitjacket just as much as a power list is. Making the mechanic more open-ended, making the numbers advance slower, and making ability scores matter are all positive things.

Training accounts for a heck of a lot more than natural talent (or a +2).

Really? The whole nature/nurture thing is very contentious in the biology and psychology communities, where the influences of genetics are being elucidated. There are many people who profoundly disagree with that statement (and plenty who do agree with it).

It also varies tremendously based on the task. There was a recent article where a former pro football player noted that football accomodates a relatively diverse group of body types and success very much revolves around training towards a particular role, while the ability to play basketball, while certainly involving skill, basically requires certain physical characteristics (height obviously among them).

For a game, I think it's best just to say that both skill and ability should matter, and that neither should be dominant.

I know it's abstract, and I'm not a simulationist, but my noble czar wizard is going to be better at the court dances than the street urchin rogue kid who is more dexterous, and the templar paladin who is more charismatic.

A fair point. In 3e, we had occasions where something required a straight ability check. Perhaps, in 5e there will be occasions where something requires a check with only skill and no ability? Or perhaps penalties will be used more aggressively. Perhaps specialized social or other situations are treated like weapon proficiencies: the default is to have a -4 penalty at them unless you are trained. After all, most people are nonproficient at court dancing.

(Actually, this is my reply to [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] as well: make lockpicking at a penalty unless you are a rogue.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Very similar to 2e NWPs which pleases me. Wasn't. Huge fan of 3e skills, and didn't care much for 4e skill challenges.