D&D 5E What needs to be fixed in 5E?

[Nahat Anoj]

4Ed has many things it's good at handling, but its skills system is a mess.

I'd phrase it as "the skill system needs a lot of TLC," but I more or less agree. That's why I'm interested in the discussion of skills in L&L - how PCs and players interact with the imagined game world is really important IMO, and for whatever reason I don't feel like the 4e designers gave it enough consideration.

I think PCs should have to use climb checks and such to get past obstacles at low heroic. The ability to just zip past obstacles should be a higher heroic concept and not handed out like candy.

...

D&D shouldn't be a game of low level super heroes flying or teleporting all over the place. Again, IMO. Let the PCs build up to the stronger effects as they level up and don't just hand them out like candy at level one.

I'd prefer to have the lion's share of fancy flight and teleport abilities at higher levels as well.

Speaking strictly from a "game play and setting implication" persective, it would make sense to have all potential problematic racial abilities moved into options that the race may take. Sure, all eladrin had the opportunity to learn to Fey Step, but that was one of several choices that they could make. In practice, a lot of eladrin, maybe even the vast majority, don't. (Or they do, in some campaigns. Would depend a lot on what was happening in that world.)

Yeah, I think Fey Step should be something that all eladrin/elves should be able to learn eventually, at higher levels (again, IMO). I can totally get behind a Fey Step style ability that fey creatures can learn if they spend time developing their innate magical abilities.

What they DO measure is a character's propensity to do certain things. If a character has a propensity to lie then the player acquires a good Bluff bonus to represent that. This is an 'M.O.' that character uses.

In Mike Mearls' first L&L article about the proposed skill system, the example "skills" seemed a lot like the "propensities" you mention above. Indeed, the "skills" seemed more like feats than 3e style skill ranks. While I'm not certain you'd go in L&L's specific direction, I do like the idea of treating skills as propensities or aptitudes.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, that is pretty much where I'm at too. Anything plot significant is worth a skill challenge, at which point playing off one guy's 'perform' check against another's is not really the focus. Since there's no reason to need a specific skill for NPCs the check is against a DC (and any 'perform' skill rank you gave an NPC in 4e would just be a DC written in a different form). Your background says "really good with a fiddle" well, you can give it a try, Joe the Dwarf over there, he's not even in the running, which for most everyday types of 'skills' is really where it should be. I threw pots for 5 years, I can throw a 3' high vase, someone that hasn't got that kind of experience? I don't care what 'level' they are or how high their 'dex' is or whatever, they have 0 chance, so I have background 'potter' and I can do it. If it came up in a skill challenge as a toss, well, its a DC whatever DEX check or somesuch.

Backgrounds really did mostly solve the 'logically I should have this skill' thing. It could be better, I've advocated just giving every character any old 4 skills they want instead of the whole class list nonsense, but it hardly represents a glaring flaw in the whole skill system IMHO.

The problem with just adding in "well, I want to be able to just call any old arbitrary thing a skill if I feel like" is it really DOES put a big monkey wrench in things. Martial Practices sort of have the same problem. As soon as you say you CAN get 'boating' as a skill, or 'potting' or whatever INSTANTLY any PC that didn't make that choice must logically be less competent or in many cases where something requires real SKILL at doing it, like throwing a 3' vase, all other characters really logically have to be incapable of even trying it without burning a skill slot. At least backgrounds are 'free' since they have no major mechanical implications that matter beyond the one you take to get a bonus skill/+2.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Going back further upthread to look at the HERO system, it's crucial to recognize that any PC may take any skill- without classes, your PC's skillset is unique to him because he can take ANY skill. In addition, if you don't see the skill in the book, you cn simply add it...and it follows exactly the same mechanics as a standard skill.

Translating that into 4Ed, that would mean divorcing skill selection from lists limited by class. If you want to maintain that certain classes are better at certain skills than others due to training- part of the logic behind class-limited skill lists- give classes a +2 bonus to those skills (let's call that the Expert bonus...and it only applies to skills you train in).

You'd have a functionally infinite skill list with 3 basic tiers- untrained, trained, and expert- plus racial, level, and feat-based bonuses.

It is also crucial that Hero has different costs for skills--though granted it is a lot more uniform now than it was. Doesn't 6th ed. still preserve the 2 cheaper cost for knowledge and profession skills, and provide skill enhancers that make buying several even cheaper?

So if you want a separate tier in 4E for these extra skills, that don't impinge on the resources used for the main skills, I have no problem with it. My problem is with continuing to add to the list, as if that has no effect on the scope of what is already on it.

 

[KarinsDad]

A mechanical measurement of character personality more than anything else.

I think this is over analyzing 4E skills.

The skills are skill groupings (a hodge podge of similar actual skills or subskills), and as you say, some people are better than others in each area.

But, I don't consider being good at a related set of skills to be anywhere near a personality thing. It's an aptitude thing combined with or without a training thing.

In real life, if I'm good at Algebra, there's a fair chance that I am also good at Trig. Not guaranteed, but close enough that we can call it a Math skill. I have an aptitude towards mathematics. Two different people can be similar strong in mathematics, but have totally different personalities.

Skills don't dictate how PCs act (i.e. personality), skills dictate how successful PCs can be at attempting certain activities.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

'personality' may not be the right word, but 'propensity' or something like that probably is. If you do a lot of lying you get good at it, but you also shape your methods around that, so having Bluff training to represent being 'apt to prevaricate' really isn't that big of an issue.

Like I said before though, I don't think this was all some kind of carefully premeditated design concept on the part of the 4e devs. I think it is more of an emergent characteristic of the system, something you pull out of it. I don't think the system in its exact present form is perfectly suited to it either. Not all types of skills fit perfectly with it.

Going back to where Danny talked about Dungeoneering for instance. Being 'knowledgeable' in a general sense is something of a predilection but knowing specific information about a given topic still requires actually having studied that topic, or at least being familiar with it. The specific Arcana, etc knowledge areas thus might not ideally be fitted in at the same level with social skills or physical skills. They might be represented by a bonus or something that you acquire as a class feature or a feat etc.

Basically where I stand is that skills need to remain within the same d20 resolution mechanism as the rest of the game, that's vital. The key skill areas you need in order to adventure need to be broad and few in number and a closed list as they are in 4e. Other things CAN be acquirable in some fashion, but they should probably be like backgrounds where you pretty much gain them through backstory. Nobody is picking up a fiddle and beating the devil without many years of focused practice. I find the whole 'spend a resource and your good at this thing' as distasteful as Danny finds not having a number to describe your fiddle playing.

Within those parameters there is definitely room to apply some tweaks. IMHO they aren't really particularly needed, but there you are, if you have preferences you're bound to find out they aren't always shared

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The problem with just adding in "well, I want to be able to just call any old arbitrary thing a skill if I feel like" is it really DOES put a big monkey wrench in things. Martial Practices sort of have the same problem. As soon as you say you CAN get 'boating' as a skill, or 'potting' or whatever INSTANTLY any PC that didn't make that choice must logically be less competent or in many cases where something requires real SKILL at doing it, like throwing a 3' vase, all other characters really logically have to be incapable of even trying it without burning a skill slot. At least backgrounds are 'free' since they have no major mechanical implications that matter beyond the one you take to get a bonus skill/+2.

It is even worse than that when adding skills. It doesn't even really simulate very well the thing it is trying to simulate. Characters in some fantasy medieval environment can do all kinds of things well. (This is another area where Hero tries, but falls short, with its "Everyman Skill" rules that give a roughly 25% chance to succeed on any skill that most everyone can do.)

I believe it was Chesterton that said something along the lines that there were some things we expect a person to do well, or not at all. However, there are a lot more things we expect a man to do adequately, even if he doesn't do them well. The list, of course, varies with people, eras, and environment--though I think it is sound enough as a rule of thumb.

The canonical modern example for do well or not at all is often "brain surgery". No one wants me tinkering with brain surgery. With music, however, I have at various times played piano, baritone saxophone, guitar, sung, and composed music--well enough to play in a group in public and not make people embarassed on my behalf. I've even done a few solos. Much of it has fallen by the wayside over the years, but I still play piano for enjoyment. Unlike brain surgery, dabbling in music is something I think most people would consider a good thing (or dance or painting or whatever one does like that).

While I'm well short of Heinleins' famous list, I can also cook a good meal in several styles, wire a house, do simple but quality woodworking, write a sonnet, and a bunch of other things like that. All of them are the result of many hours spent in serious pursuit of excellence. In some cases, I do them better than some professionals, even though I have never done them for a living. (This is more a testament of the low quality that will suffice for a person to "succeed" at a career, than my high skill, but you get the idea.)

None of that matters diddly squat in a contest. Because there are professionals (and amateurs so dedicated that they might as well be) that can run rings around me. I'm not even in their league. And while most people that set their minds to it can do a lot of different things well, there is a limit for what one can master--age and physical fraility, if nothing else.

Skill rolls that creep up slowly don't even began to reflect this. So adding a bunch of skills to a list is very misleading, especially skills with low value that creep up incrementally. In reality, even fairly clueless people pick up all kinds of highly useful and productive skills almost by osmosis--by living in an environment. Go be the helper in a medieval forge, and after a few years, you wouldn't have PS: Blacksmith +5. You'd have solid skills with metal, carpentry, animals, small business management, leatherworking--and a few other things that were needed locally just becaue you were "handy". It is almost more accurate in a game model--if you want a real simulation aspect--to list what such a character can't do, rather than the other way around. Guy the Blacksmith never learned basic heraldry or any stone masonry. It's just a quirk of his character and interests.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I know what you mean CJ. Everyone has many little things they can muddle through, and may even be reasonably competent at. Most people probably reach a pretty reasonable level of competence at something, and quite a few manage to get beyond that, but what those things are is usually all related to exposure, necessity, or interest depending on environment. No skill tree/list even comes close to modeling that or ever will. I concluded that way back in the late 70's when we were hacking on skill systems, I think it was actually one of the proto-GURPS writeups. I forget even what it was called, but various game designers threw everything they could think of at the wall and nothing stuck. You just can't model human knowledge acquisition in a system that is playable.

Eh, well, people will keep trying!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As far as what I would do about skills, if I wanted a simulation, I'd separate the scope of the skill from the "power" of the skills. You'd use something like a skill roll that increases to represent how difficult are the things you can accomplish. You'd use some seperate picks off lists to represent how widespread this skill could be applied. (And people would get lots of picks just being alive.)

Using KarinsDads' example of mathematics, it is pretty difficult to learn Trig without learning Algebra (though I did tutor a lady once that managed that trick). It is not so difficult to learn Statistics but not Trig, or vice versa. Yet, a person with that aptitude for mathematics will find going from Trig to Statistics easier than the one learning Statistics cold. Nor does it stop there. Someone solid in math will generally have an easier time with Logic in a philosophy class. There is crossover between some music and math (at the brain level, proven).

Saying a person was, say, a Mathematics +10 because they knew Algebra and Trig--then they went to +12, and now they know Statistics--is off. The skill broadened. They didn't get better at Trig by studying Statistics. A skill system that treats scope as part of the same increase in the skill roll is making a trade away from simulation of the skill being modeled (per the plain meaning of the label attached to it) for game play purposes. That is the exact same kind of trade that 4E makes in its model. It merely makes the trade in a different place.

Edit: Note that none of this post is disagreeing with the conclusion of Abduls' previous post. A system that separates scope and "power" into different mechanical widgets is not going to meet his criteria. It will merely acknowledge the complete lack of trying in most skill systems, and try to grab all the "low hanging fruit" that can be grabbed without totally going all Phoenix Command on the system.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Re: math

Algebra, stats, anted geometry I can handle just fine. Trig is a mystery. Calculus...I've taken enough times to have a passing grade in it. Thank boffins for calculators & computers!

It is also crucial that Hero has different costs for skills--though granted it is a lot more uniform now than it was. Doesn't 6th ed. still preserve the 2 cheaper cost for knowledge and profession skills, and provide skill enhancers that make buying several even cheaper?

Sadly, due to the disinterest of others, my copy of 6th lays dormant- I checked out the major known changes, but didn't look at skill costs.

So if you want a separate tier in 4E for these extra skills, that don't impinge on the resources used for the main skills, I have no problem with it. My problem is with continuing to add to the list, as if that has no effect on the scope of what is already on it.

Nope- same pool. If you want your PC to be trained in a bunch of academic skills, so be it- just don't expect him to be an expert survivalist and long-distance runner.

Besides, you already have to make those kinds of choices in 4Ed. With my Dwarven, I chose Arcana, Dungeoneering, History, Intimidate and Religion as his trained skills- burning a feat (multiclassed into Psion) to get Dungeoneering.*

With an expanded skill list, I would expand the number of trained skills each PC gets, though.








* Seprate issue: I wish the Skill Powers came along at certain levels of bonuses instead of being acquired by substituting them for normal powers. Given how nifty they are, that would still need some kind of limit...perhaps a PC only gets Skill Powers from one trained skill?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sadly, due to the disinterest of others, my copy of 6th lays dormant- I checked out the major known changes, but didn't look at skill costs.



Nope- same pool. If you want your PC to be trained in a bunch of academic skills, so be it- just don't expect him to be an expert survivalist and long-distance runner.

Besides, you already have to make those kinds of choices in 4Ed. With my Dwarven, I chose Arcana, Dungeoneering, History, Intimidate and Religion as his trained skills- burning a feat (multiclassed into Psion) to get Dungeoneering.*

With an expanded skill list, I would expand the number of trained skills each PC gets, though.








* Seprate issue: I wish the Skill Powers came along at certain levels of bonuses instead of being acquired by substituting them for normal powers. Given how nifty they are, that would still need some kind of limit...perhaps a PC only gets Skill Powers from one trained skill?

What with that system will stop someone from just using all their points on the key adventuring skills? In 95% of all campaigns anything else comes up once in a blue moon on an odd numbered Friday. Even 2e NWPs had that issue, EVERYONE took Blind Fighting if they were human, it was just suicidally dumb not to.

I'd be happy enough with skill powers that you could add to your character at specific bonus values. That way even a guy that just gets the basic training and never adds to his skill in other ways, will get them EVENTUALLY, but the more focused character will get them earlier. So it isn't a bad suggestion.

I gotta say though, there's another really annoying issue with an open skill list, or even an extensive one. I run into this with CoC all the time, and finally just heavily edited its list. The things overlap all the heck all over the place. This is sort of the opposite of what CJ was saying about math. In a game situation what skill counts. If you have 'analytical geometry' and 'linear algebra' which one actually lets you calculate the possible family of orbits of an ice moon around its primary? I can almost guarantee you the DM has no idea. Neither does some module designer. The upshot is that even if you have this big skill list, particularly in knowledge/craft sort of skills, you can't differentiate enough for it to matter as a practical element of play.