D&D 5E (2014) The new skill die (and other observations)

[Kobold Stew]

I agree that Track, Open Locks, Disarm Traps and Pick Pockets shouldn't be feats. (and Open Locks/Disarm Traps should be the same skill).

For Open Locks/Disarm Traps, though, that brings back the issue of Thieves' Tools proficiencies, which needs to be solved in a different way. Also, because they are ability rolls not skill rolls, the difference between someone specializing at pocket picking, and someone just trying it out becomes much more marginal. Which is to say: There is at least a reason behind the choices they've made, even if problems remain.

 

[Klaus]

Now the question is: should Open Locks/Disarm Traps, Track and Pick Pockets be "special" tasks that require a feat? Or could they just require skill training?

 

[Falling Icicle]

For Open Locks/Disarm Traps, though, that brings back the issue of Thieves' Tools proficiencies, which needs to be solved in a different way. Also, because they are ability rolls not skill rolls, the difference between someone specializing at pocket picking, and someone just trying it out becomes much more marginal. Which is to say: There is at least a reason behind the choices they've made, even if problems remain.

Couldn't you just say that anyone trained in the skill is proficient with the tools? Or more easily, get rid of proficiency for thieves tools and just say those tasks can't be used untrained.

Now the question is: should Open Locks/Disarm Traps, Track and Pick Pockets be "special" tasks that require a feat? Or could they just require skill training?

Skill training.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Couldn't you just say that anyone trained in the skill is proficient with the tools? Or more easily, get rid of proficiency for thieves tools and just say those tasks can't be used untrained.

Yes! (bottom of post, first of three reccs; the other two are incorporated into the current rules).

 

[Li Shenron]

Couldn't you just say that anyone trained in the skill is proficient with the tools? Or more easily, get rid of proficiency for thieves tools and just say those tasks can't be used untrained.

Seconded (I was already thinking about the 1st, but don't know exactly which one is better...)

 

[Grydan]

* The improvement to the skill die: while it’s fun to step up the die, the gain is pretty small, and I suspect it’s almost always better to become trained in two more skills. This means that by level 12, (I expect) everyone in the party will be trained in spot and listen (for example), and it will be necessary just to up the DCs.

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.

The approach makes little sense to me: why should a group with 4 out of 5 PCs trained in Spot and Listen be getting better results than a group with 5 out of 5 PCs trained? If you'd instead up the DCs at 4/5 trained, how about 3/5? Somewhere, there's a break-even point where smart players are going to game the system so that they always have the max number of allowed trained PCs , and never cross the threshold where you up DCs.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes: upping the DCs, because everyone in something, leads to an ever increasing comeptition... and limits player resources...

In 3.5 I made skills useful by clearly telling my players, that it is not necesary to maximize in a skil and only being able to raise a skill more than one rank if it was used recently. I also encouraged al players to take 20 whenever there is no preasure.

I usually used DCs in the range of 10 to 20.
This way: a strong character always succeded in opening doors and a weak did never! (DC 21-24 for doors a weakling should not be able to open)

So if you just be honest and don´t do things like increasing DCs just because, players will not feel the need to maximize i every skill. And only a scout e.g. will have maximized perception.

And suddenly, every character class, even the poor fighter has enough skill ranks to be comepetent in several skills. (skill rank 5 is expert rank!)

Min Maxing, or character optimization is killing the game. Raising what makes sense in game allows the DM to stay fair.

/rant over...

For DnD next:
I´d like a bit more granular system. And gaining a new skill instead of a universal skill die increase is a step into the right direction.

What it lacks is the possibiity to specialize in a single skill without investing a feat. I could imagine:

- advantage in a skill (conflicts with racial or class advantage in that skill)
- roll a second skill die for that skill (like mastery)
- increase the die more than one step of one skill.

Actually I could imagine going as far as allowing 4 step ups per 4 levels and you can spread it over 4 skills or increase 2 skills by 2 steps.

Maybe it would be even easier to have only d4 or d6 skill dice and add y other die each x levels. You can put them at different skills or a single one or so...

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Yes, and one of the reasons why I tend to suggest that a game where characters are good at different things and in different scenes (i.e. not at the same time!) is good!

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

The approach makes little sense to me: why should a group with 4 out of 5 PCs trained in Spot and Listen be getting better results than a group with 5 out of 5 PCs trained? If you'd instead up the DCs at 4/5 trained, how about 3/5? Somewhere, there's a break-even point where smart players are going to game the system so that they always have the max number of allowed trained PCs , and never cross the threshold where you up DCs.

Completely agreed. Going to start quoting things I agree with, even if I don't have anything else to add, since XP comments aren't showing up still. Even if it doesn't add much to the actual discussion, I want others to get some public acknowledgement. As always, play what you like

 

[Kobold Stew]

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.

Well said. I may have mis-spoke (er, mis-typed. Mis-thought). I was thinking specifically in the DC scaling that was hardwired into the rules of 3e, not the whims of given DMs. Whatever the rules are the monsters are going to be written in a way that creates a particular "feel". the feel in 3e was to effectively cancel out bonuses every five levels.

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. That's irrespective of any feat investment, which for most characters will not be needed. It's not just a numbers game: if a party has missed a few "Recall Lore (heraldry)" rolls, they can target their training to suit the campaign.

But this is exactly the sort of question I want this thread to discuss -- the way I see it isn't the only way and I'm wondering what others see in the system. Thanks!