Skills... WoTC Blog Post

[Crazy Jerome]

...As opposed to:

The Rules: What sort of a character do you want to play?
The Player: I want to be a holy paladin who charges into battle on her trusty steed and skewers monsters on a lance.
The Rules: Here are 3 classes, 8 skills, and 15 feats that might be appropriate to such a character. Out of those, there are four or five combinations that will be effective. The rest range from mediocre to pathetic.
The Player: Uh... which is which?
The Rules: Figure it out for yourself.

I got more than enough of the latter in 3E and 4E. I want as little of it as possible in D&DN.

Must spread XP, and totally agree with the distinction between appropriate versus building. I do think that even the bad way can be acceptable if the bad choices are called out as such. Or more likely, to fit more with the 5E approach as more feasible, calling out a those 4 or 5 choices as, "These work. We tested them. We know they work. Can't go wrong with that." And then some paragraph at the start that says if you start customizing outside of that, who knows what you'll get?

I think the first step in presenting that kind of design is acknowledging that because of the nature of the design, some of the choices might be bad ...

 

[Ettin]

Yes, but we also don't want child-saftey D&D.

Like those games for Special Needs children (no offence), where everyone's a winner all the time!

ahahahaha you actually believe this

(no offence)

 

[pemerton]

to fit more with the 5E approach as more feasible, calling out a those 4 or 5 choices as, "These work. We tested them. We know they work. Can't go wrong with that." And then some paragraph at the start that says if you start customizing outside of that, who knows what you'll get?

I think the first step in presenting that kind of design is acknowledging that because of the nature of the design, some of the choices might be bad

The hybrid rules in 4e's PHB3 are very upfront about this. They could serve as a good model.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

The only thing in 3e that supports your preference is distinction between trained and untrained.

So in next, i hope being trained has a meaning again:

you are smart? you can calculate. You are trained in math: you know the calculus.
You are dextrous? You can dance, if someone guides you and you don´t stumble over your feet. You are trained in dancing: you can guide.

In 4e I usually do it this way:

You are a cleric with high perception: roll a HARD check to find traps.
You are a rogue with mediocre training in perception: you only roll against a medium or even easy check.

So I´d like next skill training not only give a small bonus, but reducing the difficulty!

 

[Falling Icicle]

I like the greater emphasis on ability scores. 3e placed way too much weight in skill training. The +5 bonus from even a legendary ability score was insignificant compared to the 23 ranks a character could get from skill training.

But I think they've swung too far in the opposite extreme here. With skill training granting a mere +2 bonus, training now means far too little. Clerics shouldn't be better trackers than most Rangers just because they typically have higher Wisdom, nor should Fighters be better climbers than most Rogues just because they typically have higher Strength. Granted, they said you can increase your skill bonuses by +1 at a time, but gave no indication on how often this can happen.

I think that skill training should give a starting +5 bonus instead of +2. That way skill training would be significant enough that it would clearly separate the learned from the novice, but ability scores will still be very important, and untrained characters can still try things and have a decent chance to succeed.

The other thing that bothered me was the mention of a character only having four skills. Seriously? That's it?

 

[tuxgeo]

< . . . snip . . . >
The other thing that bothered me was the mention of a character only having four skills. Seriously? That's it?

The number four was mentioned in connection with the "backgrounds," but that limit might not necessarily apply to the whole character. I would imagine that classes might also grant skills, so you would never have a wizard lacking arcana training through bad choice of background, nor ever have a rogue lacking both stealth and thievery. (Of course, we don't yet know whether "arcana," "stealth," and "thievery" are included as official 5ENext skills.)

We'll find out in less than a week.