D&D 5E The new skill die (and other observations)

[RangerWickett]

Can someone explain why we aren't using this system, which Mearls proposed back in 2011? https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110816

Short version is, you get ranks in skills. 1 is basic training. 6 is best in the universe. Most PCs would probably start with 2 in a couple skills, 1 in a few more.

When you want to try something, the DM decides how many ranks are needed to pull it off. Basic action? It's Easy (1 rank). Something tougher? Hard (3 ranks). At the limits of mortal power? 6 ranks.

If you have as many ranks as are required, you pull off the action. No need to roll.

If you're 1 rank too low, make an ability check (DC 10) to pull it off. If you're 2 ranks too low, make an ability check (DC 20). You're encouraged to find ways to make the task easier, which reduces the rank.

It's simple, minimizes dice rolling, minimizes fiddly bonus tracking, and would handily wed 'rulings not rules' with 'the players know what they're getting into.'

"I want to climb that. How hard is it?" "It's raining, and you don't have climbing gear. Rank 4." "Ah, I have 2 ranks. This will be tough. Maybe I should backtrack and see if I can turn some of the dead orcs' gear into makeshift climbing tools. That'd drop it to rank 3, right?" "Right."

 

[Li Shenron]

I still suspect that for a character trained in 4 skills to start (gaining a +3.5 benefit per roll on average), it is still better to expand the skills trained (yielding at level 17 a character receiving +3.5 on 10 trained skills) than it is to receive +6.5 on the original 4 skills.

...maybe there is text I'm currently unable to find... but from the Skills document I still read that you only gain a new skill i.e. one at those levels if you choose so instead of skill dice increase.

If this is true, you are choosing between an average +1 to all skills or 1 more skill, so that at level 17 you either have:

+6.5 on 4 skills (total 26 points)
+5.5 on 5 skills (total 27.5 points)
+4.5 on 6 skills (total 27 points)
+3.5 on 7 skills (total 24.5 points)

...roughly quite the same number of points, although a straight-numerical comparison is not completely fair IMHO.

 

[Kobold Stew]

D'oh! You are completely correct!

My misreading. Thanks. I've edited the OP, but kept the rest as a testament to my shame.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Can someone explain why we aren't using this system, which Mearls proposed back in 2011?

Mostly because it's dull as dishwater.

There's no motivation to try and pull off an unlikely stunt with that system. There's no moment of ARGH! when you try something and roll a 1, no moment of WOOO! when you try something and roll a 20. This makes skill checks background material, things you don't pay attention to, and that removes a lot of their awesome from the play of the game.

Not that the option shouldn't exist to do things quickly, if you don't care to have the skill check be a moment of tension, but that's what Take 10 is for, isn't it?

 

[Stalker0]

Forgive me the tangent, especially if I'm misinterpreting your statement, but if any DM I was playing with upped the DCs for something because everyone in the party had invested the resources to be good at it, I'd be rather miffed.

I tend to subscribe to the school of thought that if I as a player want a character to be good at something, and spend character-build resources to BE good at that thing, then that character should darn well be good at that thing, not just keeping up because the DCs have adjusted to compensate. The same applies for my players' characters when I DM.

I think this is the approach with bounded accuracy. it used to be that being "good" at something made you so good that you could bypass whole segments of the game willy nilly, so dms felt they had to racket up the dcs to compete. when maximum skill results are tamer, there is less incentive to do such.