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

[MuhVerisimilitude]

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?

There are a few skills were the upgrades are less obvious. Performance is one of them. In my prototype the first stage of performance is "proficiency with X" where X is an instrument, voice or performance tool. The second stage is a charm effect against a small fraction of the audience. The third stage is a mass-fascination type of effect.

Perception gets a few range related upgrades as you advance it.

But yes. It roughly functions like skill feats in PF2 except rather than being a distinct thing they are baked into the skill itself.

 

[Tonguez]

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?

Performance - give it a distract-beguile-fascinate track, or performance so inspiring that it changes the viewers emotions.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

The more rules we have the more limitations we have.

It is like law and regulation.

I am not an OSR guy but the more you tack on, the narrower things get. It goes from head and tails to very complicated. Once you think everything has to be codified, you start running across things that “don’t fit.”

That is just a preference of course—-I can see the other point of view. I don’t want to return to just rolling under an ability score for all things.

Some things need some training no matter your natural talent. No matter how dexterous you are you don’t pick up a guitar and Eddie Van Halen it.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

The more rules we have the more limitations we have.

It is like law and regulation.

I am not an OSR guy but the more you tack on, the narrower things get. It goes from head and tails to very complicated. Once you think everything has to be codified, you start running across things that “don’t fit.”

That is just a preference of course—-I can see the other point of view. I don’t want to return to just rolling under an ability score for all things.

Some things need some training no matter your natural talent. No matter how dexterous you are you don’t pick up a guitar and Eddie Van Halen it.

You only have a limitation if the codified things were already possible before they were codified.

For example: If I add the non-magical ability to use a performance check to charm a crowd of listeners I have not taken anything from anyone, because it couldn't be done before I added that ability. No GM would allow this because it would not be "realistic". See the endless guy-at-the-gym threads.

If I add a non-magical abilitiy that makes intimidate, at higher levels, into an AoE debuff that inflicts frightened on everyone in the area then that hasn't taken anything from anybody, because which GM would say yes to that?

If I add a non-magical ability that lets you, for one action, attempt to lock-pick a locked door without even having tools at hand then I haven't taken anything from anyone, because I don't think any GM would allow that.

The thing is you only codify things which are obviously not already possible. You only codify the AWESOME things. Everything else can remain fuzzy and undefined because nobody gives a crap about them.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

You only have a limitation if the codified things were already possible before they were codified.

For example: If I add the non-magical ability to use a performance check to charm a crowd of listeners I have not taken anything from anyone, because it couldn't be done before I added that ability. No GM would allow this because it would not be "realistic". See the endless guy-at-the-gym threads.

If I add a non-magical abilitiy that makes intimidate, at higher levels, into an AoE debuff that inflicts frightened on everyone in the area then that hasn't taken anything from anybody, because which GM would say yes to that?

If I add a non-magical ability that lets you, for one action, attempt to lock-pick a locked door without even having tools at hand then I haven't taken anything from anyone, because I don't think any GM would allow that.

The thing is you only codify things which are obviously not already possible. You only codify the AWESOME things. Everything else can remain fuzzy and undefined because nobody gives a crap about them.

I hear you but think definitions of mundane and inconsequential and skilled Vs. Unskilled might mean different things to different groups.

My point is that it falls on a continuum and too much regulation leads to more limitations. Some is need or it’s just fairy tale hour vs. a game.

I like a middle ground. With 5e, and the way it is structured a good DM and DM judgement is going to be necessary for all of these things with the extant system.

I like that. But can see the other viewpoint. I used to share it.

 

[Minigiant]

There are a few skills were the upgrades are less obvious. Performance is one of them. In my prototype the first stage of performance is "proficiency with X" where X is an instrument, voice or performance tool. The second stage is a charm effect against a small fraction of the audience. The third stage is a mass-fascination type of effect.

Performance - give it a distract-beguile-fascinate track, or performance so inspiring that it changes the viewers emotions.

But Charm and fascination are not intrinsic parts of Performance.

Performance in D&D is just

1. Can you perform X?
2. How well you can perform X?

Charming via Performance is a magical ability in most fantasy worlds. The ability to charm is either something unlocked via a special ability or an act full determined by the difficulty of the song.
You play the Lullaby and the monster falls asleep. There is no other dimension. You roll to Perform X and the effect of X happens.
Now you could have the other dimension be the length of the Effect X or the number of targets.

But like many said in this thread,if you do this to every skill, it would be impossible to memorize and calculate quickly and the game would likely slow down.

This is why games like 3e, PF, Fate and others lock the 2nd or 3rd dimension behind a feat or aspect or class or something so that the player only has to memorize the 1-3 skills they have with a 2nd or 3rd dimension.

 

[Minigiant]

One thing I pondered while on the commute from work.

What if there was a general "quantity" die for skill checks?
After an ability check you roll a second die. On a 6 or higher, you get double the result or rewards of what you were aiming for.
An Athletics check to jump gives you double the distance jumped
A History Check to remember lore gives you 2 bits of information
A Survival Check to forage for food gives you double the rations.

A roll of 1 halves your results.

Non-numerical results and rewards are unaffected.

So a PC might have skills of

• Athletics: +7, 1d10
• Acrobatics +5, 1d8
• Sleight of Hand +2, 1d4
• Stealth +2, 1d4
• Arcana +4, 1d6

etc.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I hear you but think definitions of mundane and inconsequential and skilled Vs. Unskilled might mean different things to different groups.

I think that's specifically what my problem is. (see below)

My point is that it falls on a continuum and too much regulation leads to more limitations. Some is need or it’s just fairy tale hour vs. a game.

I like a middle ground. With 5e, and the way it is structured a good DM and DM judgement is going to be necessary for all of these things with the extant system.

I like that. But can see the other viewpoint. I used to share it.

My problem, which I might have stated earlier in the thread, is not with the lack of rules. My problem is with the asymmetry between spells and skills. Spells are extremely powerful, extremely potent, extremely plentiful, and also extremely clear. You always know what you get.

But every normal class, that is every class that relies on the skill system, does not have this at all. They have to rely completely on GM fiat.

But like many said in this thread,if you do this to every skill, it would be impossible to memorize and calculate quickly and the game would likely slow down.

This is why games like 3e, PF, Fate and others lock the 2nd or 3rd dimension behind a feat or aspect or class or something so that the player only has to memorize the 1-3 skills they have with a 2nd or 3rd dimension.

Great point. I'm trying to design it so that as little fiddly detail is needed as possible and nothing must be memorised. I don't want to add an additional set of "feats" like in Pathfinder 2, for example. This system is much simpler. I'm borrowing some design elements from board games.

 

[Jaeger]

My problem is with the asymmetry between spells and skills. Spells are extremely powerful, extremely potent, extremely plentiful, and also extremely clear. You always know what you get.

That's because Spells and skills in D&D work on completely disparate systems.

If you want True Symmetry; you either need to make spells work like skills, or skills work like spells.

One or the other.

Making an alternate skill system that still doesn't work like spells do will not get you there.

In my opinion; You are likely to just be creating other unforeseen asymmetrical issues.


Oh, and some friendly advice for those that think one roll Pass/Fail, and done for skills is bad. Never ever play any RPG from free league that uses their year zero dice mechanic.

Or any BRP game.

Like, ever.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

That's because Spells and skills in D&D work on completely disparate systems.

If you want True Symmetry; you either need to make spells work like skills, or skills work like spells.

One or the other.

Making an alternate skill system that still doesn't work like spells do will not get you there.

In my opinion; You are likely to just be creating other unforeseen asymmetrical issues.


Oh, and some friendly advice for those that think one roll Pass/Fail, and done for skills is bad. Never ever play any RPG from free league that uses their year zero dice mechanic.

Or any BRP game.

Like, ever.

I just said I don't think one roll Pass/Fail is bad. I think it's bad when it's absurdly asymmetrical. I'm not too familiar with BRP, but it's something like Call of Cthulhu in terms of system, yes? Everything is a skill? I've read Undergångens Arvtagare which is a version of Mutant which I think also does that. I've played a classic Swedish system that does it too. Drakar och Demoner.

Want to know how DoD works? Everything. Is. A. Skill. Want to be a caster? Sure. But you're spending those skill points to improve your individual spells and you're not going to be very good at other things. And there's always a risk of failure.

It's unfair to assume that I haven't played or don't like other systems just because I say here that D&D's skill system is fuzzy and lacks rules... Because it is... And does... In other systems it doesn't really matter, because they don't have flawless magic that can't fail.