D&D 5E The skill system is one dimensional.

[ChameleonX]

I skipped to the last page, so I don't know if this has been addressed, but I would add a series of skill "perks" that unlock when your bonus in a certain skill reaches a given level.

Sort of like the Mastery perks in the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

So, for instance:

Athletics 10: Your maximum jump distance is doubled, and you take no falling damage if you fall a distance no greater than your walking speed.

Athletics 15: You gain a climbing speed and a swimming speed equal to your walking speed, or your existing climbing and/or swimming speed increases by 10ft.

Athletics 20: As an action, you can lift, push, or drag an object that weighs up to a number of pounds equal to 100x your strength score. You can continue to do so for up to a number of rounds equal to your Strength modifier (minimum 1). You must then finish a long rest to use this feature again.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I skipped to the last page, so I don't know if this has been addressed, but I would add a series of skill "perks" that unlock when your bonus in a certain skill reaches a given level.

Sort of like the Mastery perks in the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

So, for instance:

Athletics 10: Your maximum jump distance is doubled, and you take no falling damage if you fall a distance no greater than your walking speed.

Athletics 15: You gain a climbing speed and a swimming speed equal to your walking speed, or your existing climbing and/or swimming speed increases by 10ft.

Athletics 20: As an action, you can lift, push, or drag an object that weighs up to a number of pounds equal to 100x your strength score. You can continue to do so for up to a number of rounds equal to your Strength modifier (minimum 1). You must then finish a long rest to use this feature again.

This is sort of what I'm doing in my prototype, except I'm deliberately using only at-will abilities. I'm half way done, kinda. Will post in its own thread. It requires a custom character sheet because the design quite different.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Let's start with this. I honestly don't see how this is insulting. I am literally taking what you said:

And then I am using it as an example to indicate, that indeed, the rules of 4e should be used for online purposes, and indeed, without the bloat, it will be a great ruleset. The part of hiring an AI DM is just more flavor - because I believe it will happen soon. And guess who will try it out and pay for a campaign and play with that great ruleset? Me.
But for the table, the players not online, and the DMs that still make maps or use terrain or use minis, 5e is king and for good reason.

One of the most frustrating edition-war arguments against 4e was that it so thoroughly neutered the DM, they might as well be replaced by a computer. That the rules were there to eliminate any human element from running a game.

Again, this is not personal. My statement was about what I have seen other people do. They is the keyword. They did trash-talk it. They did have the sales figures to prove it. This is what I have seen. I assume you've seen it too.

Okay...that comes across as "these people are simply right." If you can "prove" your claims, your claims are true. That's what proof does...

The presentation is part of the system. It single handedly is the most important aspect for creating the "feel" of the game. If you don't think it's a part of the system and is some different entity, then you are correct. But to me, the two are so intricately woven together, that they help shape one another.

I do see them as separate. Just as clothes are not the same as the person who wears them--but, as the saying goes, "the clothes make the man." This is not absolutely true, but it is certainly not false.

I have not seen these claims, but I believe you. I feel like people talk out of their you know what all the time.

Those were certainly not the claims I was referring to. I even gave an example.

Okay.

 

[Scott Christian]

One of the most frustrating edition-war arguments against 4e was that it so thoroughly neutered the DM, they might as well be replaced by a computer. That the rules were there to eliminate any human element from running a game.

Really. That's interesting. I'm going to be completely honest. Since I liked 4e and had a lot of fun with it, I really did not get involved in the debate. I've just read them. I do not remember this one specifically, but do remember a few like it, such as, 4e felt like a simulation. Still, tht argument about human element is silly.

Okay...that comes across as "these people are simply right." If you can "prove" your claims, your claims are true. That's what proof does...

Yes, and they are correct for the points they are trying to make. They took what was happening at their table, connected it to what was going on a WotC, and used that to validate their claims.

Two things can exist at one time: They can be correct, and 4e can be a great edition/game.

I do see them as separate. Just as clothes are not the same as the person who wears them--but, as the saying goes, "the clothes make the man." This is not absolutely true, but it is certainly not false.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Presentation is part of the system to me. The two are much more intertwined than clothes and a person. To me, it's the person (system) and that person's skin (presentation). But that is okay. I get your point, and if I look at the two as separate, I definitely see what you are saying.

 

[Minigiant]

I almost think that the base skill resolution should be tiered

Untrained: Raw Ability check
Proficient: Ability check with proficiency
Expert: Ability check with proficiency and reroll or double proficiency (your choice)
Master: Ability check with proficiency and reroll, double proficiency, or minimum of 10 as roll (your choice)
Grandmaster: Ability check with proficiency and reroll, double proficiency, or minimum of 10 as roll (your choice or 2)

Skill Feats require Expert or Master or Grandmaster

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I almost think that the base skill resolution should be tiered

Untrained: Raw Ability check
Proficient: Ability check with proficiency
Expert: Ability check with proficiency and reroll or double proficiency (your choice)
Master: Ability check with proficiency and reroll, double proficiency, or minimum of 10 as roll (your choice)
Grandmaster: Ability check with proficiency and reroll, double proficiency, or minimum of 10 as roll (your choice or 2)

Skill Feats require Expert or Master or Grandmaster

This only modifies your chance of success, not the impact of a success. The homebrew prototype system I've mentioned (that I'm working on) almost completely eschews success chance growth for impact growth. As you get better your success chance grows a little, but the impact of a success grows a lot.

I don't think there's a point in improving the scaling of skill success chance, since no matter how far you scale athletics, for example, it doesn't in practice make you more athletic. Sure your chances of success are greater, but you can't move better in combat.

 

[ChameleonX]

This only modifies your chance of success, not the impact of a success. The homebrew prototype system I've mentioned (that I'm working on) almost completely eschews success chance growth for impact growth. As you get better your success chance grows a little, but the impact of a success grows a lot.

I don't think there's a point in improving the scaling of skill success chance, since no matter how far you scale athletics, for example, it doesn't in practice make you more athletic. Sure your chances of success are greater, but you can't move better in combat.

Perhaps have a separate perk tree for each skill that is unlocked as the skill bonus improves, and introduce a separate "perk point" system that is linked to character level. The player allocates perk points into whatever perks are open to them as desired.

Each skill already has multiple use cases, so each one could have it's own perk tree. Persuasion, for instance, could have a tree based on inspiring allies with Bard-like effects, or provide bonuses to bartering, or engaging with the hireling/sidekick system, etc.

If you've ever played Skyrim with the Ordinator Perk Overhaul mod installed, you know the kind of thing I'm thinking of.

 

[ChameleonX]

Really. That's interesting. I'm going to be completely honest. Since I liked 4e and had a lot of fun with it, I really did not get involved in the debate. I've just read them. I do not remember this one specifically, but do remember a few like it, such as, 4e felt like a simulation. Still, tht argument about human element is silly.

Yes, and they are correct for the points they are trying to make. They took what was happening at their table, connected it to what was going on a WotC, and used that to validate their claims.

Two things can exist at one time: They can be correct, and 4e can be a great edition/game.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Presentation is part of the system to me. The two are much more intertwined than clothes and a person. To me, it's the person (system) and that person's skin (presentation). But that is okay. I get your point, and if I look at the two as separate, I definitely see what you are saying.

I always liked 4e. It was the first edition I really got invested in, and I never really understood why there was so much hate for it. Now that I've looked into older editions, it makes more sense, but I still think 4e had a lot of progressive ideas and good design choices.

I think the main issues that really killed it was the reliance on magic items to make or break your build, and the related MMO style gear treadmill effect it encouraged.

The other thing was powers being based on classes instead of sources. It led to way too much bloat, and for obvious tiers to form among classes due to some getting tons of support (e.g. the PHB classes) while others got basically nothing (e.g. the Seeker and Runepriest).

That's why I was a fan of unified spell lists in One D&D. It seemed like them finally doing what they should've done in 4th edition. Unfortunately, that seems to have been rolled back... Oh well...

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Perhaps have a separate perk tree for each skill that is unlocked as the skill bonus improves, and introduce a separate "perk point" system that is linked to character level. The player allocates perk points into whatever perks are open to them as desired.

Each skill already has multiple use cases, so each one could have it's own perk tree. Persuasion, for instance, could have a tree based on inspiring allies with Bard-like effects, or provide bonuses to bartering, or engaging with the hireling/sidekick system, etc.

If you've ever played Skyrim with the Ordinator Perk Overhaul mod installed, you know the kind of thing I'm thinking of.

This is almost exactly how I do it. What I have is a bit tedious to explain in detail, but as you level up your class/es you gain opportunities to "advance" skills. Every time you advance a skill something about that skill is upgraded. For example: When you advance Athletics (swimming) you gain a faster swim speed, and when you have advanced swimming twice you get the ability to completely ignore negative effects from armour on swimming speed and performance (i know 5e technically does not have a swimming penalty for armour, but some gms may make such "rulings").

In my system classes that rely on skills, such as all non-casters, get heavy bonuses in skill advancements, while casters are left out or are thematically restricted. For example wizards are locked out of advancements from physical skills, so a level 20 wizard will need spells to keep up. But they get lots of lore advancements.

 

[Minigiant]

This only modifies your chance of success, not the impact of a success. The homebrew prototype system I've mentioned (that I'm working on) almost completely eschews success chance growth for impact growth. As you get better your success chance grows a little, but the impact of a success grows a lot.

I don't think there's a point in improving the scaling of skill success chance, since no matter how far you scale athletics, for example, it doesn't in practice make you more athletic. Sure your chances of success are greater, but you can't move better in combat.

Not every skill works that way.

That's the problem.

Really only the Movement and Stealth skills have secondary measurements that you can have a second growth track outside of success.

This is where feat based games like 3e or PF2e struggles with.
What is the second track for Performance? You play at higher decibels?