Skills... WoTC Blog Post

[ren1999]

There isn't too much wrong with skills in 4E and Pathfinder. They work well enough for me and mine.

But this EN World user gets credit for this idea.

S'mon's Difficulty Class Table for all Skill Checks
10: Easy Heroic task
15: Moderate Heroic task
20: Hard Heroic Task, Easy Paragon Task
25: Moderate Paragon Task
30: Hard Paragon Task, Easy Epic Task
35: Moderate Epic Task
40: Hard Epic Task

I personally think that Endurance and Athletics shouldn't be a skill but rather an aspect of Strength or Constitution checks.

Here is a list of skills that I have reworded a little to give players a hint of what the skill does.

Players should be able to work together and combine skills. For example, a dwarf could work with his party's wizard by crafting a metal weapon where the wizard crafts the spell enchanting that weapon.

Sleight of Hand - rogue
Stealth Evade - rogue
Disable Device - rogue (Open Lock)
Disguise Self - rogue
Escape Artist - rogue (Pick Pocket)
Sneak Attack - rogue
Nature Survival - ranger
Knowledge Plants - druid, ranger
Knowledge Animals - druid, ranger
Track Quarry - ranger
Handle Animal - ranger
Forage Food - ranger
Build Shelter - ranger
Pass No Trace - druid, ranger
Knowledge Dungeoneering - ranger and any class
Power Punch - monk
Perform Music - bard
Spot Listen (wis)
Climb Surface
Swim Distance
Ride Horse
Sail Ship
Use Rope (int)
Slow Fall (dex)
Aid Ally
Bandage Ally
Appraise Item (int)
Craft Poison (int) - rogue
Craft Potion (int)
Craft Wood (int)
Craft Stone (int) - Knowledge Engineering
Craft Metal (int)
Craft Leather (int)
Craft Scroll (int)
Knowledge Arcana (int) - Spellcraft, Detect Magic, Enchant Item
Knowledge Monsters (int)
Knowledge Religion (wis)
Knowledge Language (int)
Knowledge CourtBehavior
Knowledge History - by Adventure Campaign
Bluff Others (cha)
Extend Diplomacy (cha)
Intimidate Others (cha)

 

[Thalionalfirin]

Would he not get another +1 due to 12 Dex?

I was going to stick something like that in there but I wasn't sure how the attribute bonuses are going to look. For all we know, a 12 could give no bonus.

 

[The Shadow]

I like what I'm seeing, but I have a few concerns.

What happens when two distinct skills overlap? Like the 'Charm' skill mentioned, and a hypothetical 'Seduction' skill? Does that count as extra training, with the other skill giving an extra +1?

I'm assuming we aren't limited to the skills we get with background... how does it work to gain more? By level? Dependent on class? Can you gain traits in place of skills? So many questions!

 

[Stormonu]

That's the thing, though. Under the system they are proposing, a high ability score is not merely raw talent--it's talent plus broad training in the stuff that ability applies to.

You can sort of think of ability scores, in the flatter progression, as now also covering what the 4E +1/2 level bonus does. Then if we reverse-engineer this for implications, it means that base (concept) ability scores might be relatively low. Felipe the rogue had a 12 Dex, 8 Str, 12 Int, and 10 Wis when he joined the thieves guild at age 11. It was all that running around climbing things, picking locks, throwing knives, being the lookout, etc. that caused him to end up with 16 Dex and whatever boosts to those other stats he got.

That doesn't necessarily mean that characters are built around that pattern (though I think it would be cool if they were). Maybe you just pick your stats for your first level character, pick class, etc. But when you picked that "16 Dex" you were saying, by definition, that your broad training in Dex-related things is extensive, and supplements whatever natural talent you may have.

Well, that's the thing - I don't want that set up where the characters are "generally skilled". I want to assume the characters are unskilled unless they specifically put some sort of points into a skill.

 

[SKid4]

I remember a Legends & Lore column mentioning a desire for a form of "broad training" associated with a particular ability, partially so skills could be an optional module.

I also remember a more recent mention of a class bonus to ability scores, which could be their "broad training" solution.

Perhaps all classes will increase their 2-3 "primary" ability scores by 1?



Additionally, those named skills levels could correspond to skill ranks (i.e., initiate is a +2 skill bonus, apprentice is a +3 skill bonus, etc., and +6 could be the maximum skill rank).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well, that's the thing - I don't want that set up where the characters are "generally skilled". I want to assume the characters are unskilled unless they specifically put some sort of points into a skill.

I think they are being clever here, though. The stuff characters get from the "broad skill" of the ability score itself is not everything, but is "the stuff that any adventurer can do." I'm sure they'll have default suggestions for this, but if you don't like them, it's easy enough to shift.

So in your campaigns, typically, the stuff that any adventurer can do would be contrued very narrowly. You might then opt to give out more of the specific skills to compensate, or not.

That's what I like about having both broad and specific skills worked into the same mechanics. I can shift the line off what is covered by broad or not as I want. And I don't even necessarily need to shift it consistently, for some kinds of campaigns. If I want to run a rather sneaky group of characters, I can assume that all of them can do some basic sneaky stuff with their ability scores, but the other "adventuring" skills require specifics.

 

[fuindordm]

Coming in a bit late, but I wholeheartedly agree with CJ. Any skill system is a compromise between permissive and proscriptive play, and they're just trying out a new place on the spectrum.

I've played a lot of 3E and a lot of AD&D. The problem that WotC is trying to address, where players limit themselves to a small toolkit of highly ranked skills because they expect DCs to be high, is indeed a problem for me. Not a game-breaker, but I want to see players immersing themselves more deeply.

In AD&D, the 6 stats do the heavy lifting. IMC I tell the players they have all the basic "adventurer" skills and should just try things that make sense. The thief still has his specialised skills, of course, and I added a few others that any player can buy to represent skills with exceptional in-game utility such as IDing potions.

To sum up: I like the direction they're taking, and I think it works great for general adventuring, but they may need to take a different direction to represent the rogue class abilities. Just because they're "skill-like" doesn't mean the chance of success should be determined the same way, if doing so would nerf the class or make it bland.

 

[Leatherhead]

Nuts, I was hoping that skills would be less tied into ability scores. That way I could finally train my fighter to be effective at diplomacy without having to dump all my points into CHA.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Great now they are redefining ability scores too.

3E redefined ability scores. In BECMI & 1E AD&D (before non-weapon proficiencies) when you wanted to complete a difficult task and the DM wished you to roll for success, it was a stat check. Your ability score determined your success, training did not come into it. Even with non-weapon proficiencies it was still directly stat-based. So if anything they are changing the defintion back to the original.

I can already see Workshop creating headaches in play.

Suppose a PC captures an enemy alchemist's workshop. Now s/he has the benefit of the Workshop trait without having spent any PC build resources on it.

Well, first off, you'd be prepared as DM since you presented the opportunity to gain the enemy alchemist's workshop. Second, the blog lists the benefit of the workshop as 'you have a workshop where you craft the items you craft.' This leads me to believe you have other resources that allow you to make use of the workshop. An enemy alchemist's workshop should be useless to you unless you have skill in alchemy.

Or will the rules say, in these circumstances the workshop is lost by the time the next session begins, unless the player spends the resources to cement the gain? (OGL Conan, HeroWars/Quest, and The Dying Earth all use this sort of "lose it between sessions" mechanic.)

I personally hope not.

Nuts, I was hoping that skills would be less tied into ability scores. That way I could finally train my fighter to be effective at diplomacy without having to dump all my points into CHA.

If you look at the skill bonus as applicable to any skill roll with the ability score used determined by the roleplay effort you put into it your fighter should be able to be effective at diplomacy without high CHA. I could easily see uses on INT and WIS, and with the proper advice to DMs to open to player ideas, other stats could work too if they make sense. Some will hunt for ways to use their high STR every time, but good player and DM advice should discourage ideas that don't make sense in the game world. Barbarian Diplomacy could be 'might makes right' while the same fighter struggles to win over the prissy elven court members looking down their noses at the 'brutish' fighter.

 

[jodyjohnson]

At this point my ideal is a Stat or Stat +specific skill bonus system where if the DC is <= to the Stat or Stat+train it is auto-success. If lower roll a d10 and add the resulting 0 to 9.

If the situation should be more random (no take 10) take Stat -10 and add a d20.