D&D General Vote Up A 5e-alike, Part 4.1 - Skills Tiebreaker

[doctorbadwolf]

If there was a “5e core skills, attributes, class and background, but no race skills” option I’d have voted for that. Of the options listed, I chose 5e core skills.

I’d rather see weapon proficiencies and schools of magic become more like skills, and see class and background give attributes, than get rid of the core skills.

 

[Faolyn]

If there was a “5e core skills, attributes, class and background, but no race skills” option I’d have voted for that. Of the options listed, I chose 5e core skills.

I’d rather see weapon proficiencies and schools of magic become more like skills, and see class and background give attributes, than get rid of the core skills.

I didn't put racial skills there at all.

 

[Faolyn]

seeing as this is still in a tiebreaker, what's your thoughts on just having the 5e skills as working as another set of attribute base concepts?

Can you explain?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I didn't put racial skills there at all.

I didn't say that you did.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Can you explain?

(i developed the base idea i had a little more before posting)
well, the way i understand it, if i'm understanding it correctly, the class, background and culture attributes are basically skills that are just more conceptually open-ended right?, so you have the regular 5e skills (or at least a similar list to the 5e skills, i think a few could be added/removed/changed their default stat but that's a different matter) and the attributes 'areas of familiarity' from the class/bg/culture,

a sailor background would give you your proficiency bonus to climb a ship's rigging as would having proficency in athletics, so you basically just allow the two systems to exist at once and layer over each other, skills are specific and can have expertise, attributes are general and effect a wider area, ultimately the two being able to stack together to a potential x3 PB.

 

[Faolyn]

OK, everyone, poll is closed now. The winners:

Squeaking by with one more vote is keeping the standard 5e skills. I was really hoping more people would prefer class/background/culture skills. Ah well. And, perhaps surprisingly, roll under won! @Lanefan will be happy.

So let's discuss roll under for a moment.

The reason I want to discuss it is because AD&D had a bad habit of not using consistent terminology. There would frequently be +1 bonuses that actually meant -1 bonuses, because the writer was referring to the die roll and not the number to be rolled under. I don't think we should rely on things like -1 bonus because that's a bit counterintuitive for most people who think bonus = plus. If we want to do this, then we should emphasize that the bonus or penalty is to the stat you're rolling under, not the die roll itself. Strength 15, plus your +2 PB, and a +1 bonus from something else means you're rolling under a 18.

We could also possibly never use +/- signs when referring to d20 rolls. "Due to the difficulty of the lock, there is a penalty of 5 to pick it." "This sword gives a bonus of 1 on attack rolls and +1 to damage rolls." A bit wordy, but consistent.

Thoughts?

--

Back to skills for a moment. Some people suggested getting rid of Perception by making it passive only. My own suggestion is that we give every attribute passive "skills" that you don't have to roll for.

Strength: Passive athletics. Objects will be listed with a difficulty number. If your Strength + PB is higher, you can push, shove, lift, bend, whatever it without having to roll.

Dexterity: Passive stealth. You just automatically walk this quietly, even without trying.

Constitution: Passive endurance. Some (not all) physical trials, diseases, poisons, etc., will have a difficulty number. If you beat that number, you either won't be affected or can roll your save with advantage.

Intelligence: Passive insight. If the target's Charisma + PB is lower than your Int + PB, you can tell if they're lying, hiding something, faking emotions, etc.

Wisdom: Passive perception. As per the normal.

Charisma: Passive... charm, persuasion, or deception? Where you can automatically have some influence or lie to over someone's whose Int + PB is lower than your Cha + PB? Dunno about this one.

Thoughts?

--

Unless there are objects, I think the next poll will be on Fighters and, to a less extent, on class format in general. I imagine the basics of combat, archetypes, general abilities, in-class choices, and the like will be brought up while discuss fighters and then get decided later on. Unless you guys think that there's something else I should make a poll for first?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ah beans I didn’t realize the last two were a separate question. Would have just made that a tie, anyway, so it’s for the best lol

 

[CreamCloud0]

OK, everyone, poll is closed now. The winners:

Squeaking by with one more vote is keeping the standard 5e skills. I was really hoping more people would prefer class/background/culture skills. Ah well. And, perhaps surprisingly, roll under won! @Lanefan will be happy.

So let's discuss roll under for a moment.

The reason I want to discuss it is because AD&D had a bad habit of not using consistent terminology. There would frequently be +1 bonuses that actually meant -1 bonuses, because the writer was referring to the die roll and not the number to be rolled under. I don't think we should rely on things like -1 bonus because that's a bit counterintuitive for most people who think bonus = plus. If we want to do this, then we should emphasize that the bonus or penalty is to the stat you're rolling under, not the die roll itself. Strength 15, plus your +2 PB, and a +1 bonus from something else means you're rolling under a 18.

We could also possibly never use +/- signs when referring to d20 rolls. "Due to the difficulty of the lock, there is a penalty of 5 to pick it." "This sword gives a bonus of 1 on attack rolls and +1 to damage rolls." A bit wordy, but consistent.

Thoughts?

Back to skills for a moment. Some people suggested getting rid of Perception by making it passive only. My own suggestion is that we give every attribute passive "skills" that you don't have to roll for.

Strength: Passive athletics. Objects will be listed with a difficulty number. If your Strength + PB is higher, you can push, shove, lift, bend, whatever it without having to roll.

i believe i've mentioned this earlier, perhaps having a high enough str can provide natural climb/swim speeds even if they're only like, 10ft, or ignore X distance of difficult terrain per move action,

Dexterity: Passive stealth. You just automatically walk this quietly, even without trying.

Constitution: Passive endurance. Some (not all) physical trials, diseases, poisons, etc., will have a difficulty number. If you beat that number, you either won't be affected or can roll your save with advantage.

Intelligence: Passive insight. If the target's Charisma + PB is lower than your Int + PB, you can tell if they're lying, hiding something, faking emotions, etc.

Wisdom: Passive perception. As per the normal.

given that insight is a wisdom skill i would actually swap these two stat defaults and remove perception in favour of using investigation, i know investigation and perception are different skills but i can totally see passive perception deriving from inteligence/investigation, also it ties into the themes of int serving as awareness on the shared dex/int reflex save and gives significance to the oft dumped int stat

Charisma: Passive... charm, persuasion, or deception? Where you can automatically have some influence or lie to over someone's whose Int + PB is lower than your Cha + PB? Dunno about this one.

Thoughts?

cha serving as passive charm for how much people are inclined to initially like you, if proficient in the skill can also serve as passive intimidation?

 

[Lanefan]

OK, everyone, poll is closed now. The winners:

Squeaking by with one more vote is keeping the standard 5e skills. I was really hoping more people would prefer class/background/culture skills. Ah well. And, perhaps surprisingly, roll under won! @Lanefan will be happy.

So let's discuss roll under for a moment.

The reason I want to discuss it is because AD&D had a bad habit of not using consistent terminology. There would frequently be +1 bonuses that actually meant -1 bonuses, because the writer was referring to the die roll and not the number to be rolled under. I don't think we should rely on things like -1 bonus because that's a bit counterintuitive for most people who think bonus = plus. If we want to do this, then we should emphasize that the bonus or penalty is to the stat you're rolling under, not the die roll itself. Strength 15, plus your +2 PB, and a +1 bonus from something else means you're rolling under a 18.

Often IME there's a fractional modifier e.g. roll under half your Int to remember something obscure. But yes, the plus-minus terminology does become counterintuitive there (though as we also use descending AC where a +1 bonus also means you've in fact gone one point lower, it's not as jarring).

We could also possibly never use +/- signs when referring to d20 rolls. "Due to the difficulty of the lock, there is a penalty of 5 to pick it." "This sword gives a bonus of 1 on attack rolls and +1 to damage rolls." A bit wordy, but consistent.

Or state it as "You have to roll under your Strength +2" or "You're looking to get under 3 below your Dex". It's one of those things that IME is more awkward to say than to conceive.

And, if roll-under is to be a thing, that will allow me to introduce another element if-when we get to death and dying rules.

--

Back to skills for a moment. Some people suggested getting rid of Perception by making it passive only. My own suggestion is that we give every attribute passive "skills" that you don't have to roll for.

Strength: Passive athletics. Objects will be listed with a difficulty number. If your Strength + PB is higher, you can push, shove, lift, bend, whatever it without having to roll.

Dexterity: Passive stealth. You just automatically walk this quietly, even without trying.

Constitution: Passive endurance. Some (not all) physical trials, diseases, poisons, etc., will have a difficulty number. If you beat that number, you either won't be affected or can roll your save with advantage.

Intelligence: Passive insight. If the target's Charisma + PB is lower than your Int + PB, you can tell if they're lying, hiding something, faking emotions, etc.

Wisdom: Passive perception. As per the normal.

Charisma: Passive... charm, persuasion, or deception? Where you can automatically have some influence or lie to over someone's whose Int + PB is lower than your Cha + PB? Dunno about this one.

Thoughts?

While I get the rationale here, I tend to not like things to be that automatic; there should always be a small chance to mess it up, just as there should always be a small chance of succeeding beyond any expectation.

Were it me, I'd go the other direction and get rid of passive perception (and passive anything else). Yes you might still notice things you weren't trying to notice, but you'd still have to roll for it.

I do this all the time: when a character or party might be caught unaware by - or simply not notice - something but whatever it is isn't yet close enough for surprise rules to kick in, I'll just ask for a d20 roll (where low is better) without saying why. The "DC" will be different in every situation, and if they hit it they see whaever it is and can react accordingly; while if they miss it they don't, leading to either a surprise roll (if whatever it is intends to interact with them) or a narration along the lines of "Carry on, nothing to see here".

An example might be a party in a dungeon, resting in a room where they can see down a hall to a T junction but may or may not be paying attention that way. Something crosses through the intersection, I'll ask for a roll (to determine if anyone saw it, but this as yet goes unmentioned); and if the roll is low then someone noticed it (and if the roll is really low they might have got more detail e.g. what it was) while if the roll isn't low then I'll just say "Ignore me, carry on".

Unless there are objects, I think the next poll will be on Fighters and, to a less extent, on class format in general. I imagine the basics of combat, archetypes, general abilities, in-class choices, and the like will be brought up while discuss fighters and then get decided later on. Unless you guys think that there's something else I should make a poll for first?

I suspect that before this gets to class design there's probably a discussion to be had around feats - whether to include them as is, whether they're optional, whether to lose them entirely and instead bake some of them into different classes, or whatever.

 

[Faolyn]

While I get the rationale here, I tend to not like things to be that automatic; there should always be a small chance to mess it up, just as there should always be a small chance of succeeding beyond any expectation.

Accidentally thudding like an elephant or stepping on a stick isn't something that should always happen 5% of the time, IMO. It should be something that's a possibility when it's dramatic (i.e., when you need to roll), but for everyday usage, nah.

Were it me, I'd go the other direction and get rid of passive perception (and passive anything else). Yes you might still notice things you weren't trying to notice, but you'd still have to roll for it.

See, to me, if you're rolling for it, then you're trying to notice it. And if the GM wants you to notice it, they might as well just tell you without the need for a roll.

I suspect that before this gets to class design there's probably a discussion to be had around feats - whether to include them as is, whether they're optional, whether to lose them entirely and instead bake some of them into different classes, or whatever.

Good idea!

Poll 5: Feats is now up!