(What I was responding to has disappeared.)
Last edited:
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E What needs to be fixed in 5E?
- Thread starter KarinsDad
- Start date
Again, for clarity, I don't agree with that position. I only desire to have all skills have the same mechanics; the same rules. Those who don't want to use them could choose not to.
None of which is reflection on anybody's RP skills. It's just a difference in styles, not quality.
1) If you assume they are gone, they are gone.
2) Whether it makes sense to chase non-adopters of 4Ed or not depends upon numbers neither of us have.
Background Skills:
Write two backgrounds appropriate for your character. You may use those backgrounds as trained skills when appropriate.
Examples:
Blacksmith
Cartographer
Chef
Cobbler
Farmer
Hunter
Sailor
Can do it with current 4E
In 34 years in D&D, I can tell you I've encountered a huge number of DMs who decided not to use things detailed in books outside of the DMG, PHB and MM...plus a few who cut out stuff from THOSE books.
And 4Ed's "Everything is Core" philosophy hasn't changed that: I've yet to encounter a 4Ed DM who uses "Background skills."
Last edited:
Nemesis Destiny
Adventurer
And I have yet to encounter one that doesn't, so clearly neither of our experiences are remotely universal.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Well, PHB2 states flat out that you can use ANY background that makes sense as a reason to get a bonus or even auto-success in something that would logically follow from it. I agree, MANY backgrounds don't really suggest much, though if you flesh them out some they certainly could (IE 'Raised on the Streets' gives a bonus to Streetwise, but it could certainly also justify automatically knowing a good bit of information on your home turf, you just have to flesh out the character enough to know specifically where that is).
Though the background rules in PH2 are pretty cool - sadly overshadowed by their other backgrounds (Scales of War, Forgotten Realms)
Sure, but those are setting-specific rules, and thus technically are not available to just any PC. I don't allow them in my homebrew setting for instance. Actually I MIGHT allow one if it really matched well with a specific element in my campaign world, but in general I've created similar material that is not stronger than the defaults for that, so it isn't an issue). I agree those were not well conceived backgrounds though, mechanically speaking.
KidSnide
Adventurer
On the one hand, I think a short skill list filled with skills of vaguely equal importance is of high value to the game. A smaller number of skills limits the amount of rules necessary to explain the skills and it prevents optimization traps where someone needs to sacrifice their perception or mobility to adequately fill out their character background.
On the other hand, I appreciate the value of having mechanics to help realize the non-adventuring parts of the character. In my games, I apply an ad hoc +5 skilled modifier to checks where the character's background would give them proficiency, but I understand how many folks want something more concrete than a DM's ad hoc adjustments.
It seems to me that a two-tiered skill system is the right solution here. I'd keep the core list as it is, and change the optional background feature to allow players to use 2-3 background "slots" to either add a relevant core-skill to their class list or to pick from a large (and expandable) list of skills relating to craft, profession or non-adventuring areas of knowledge. If 5e feats are appropriate for non-combat enhancements, it would be reasonable to allow a feat that gives a substantial bonus to a single non-combat skill so you could play "one of the world's great blacksmiths" or something to that effect.
-KS
On the other hand, I appreciate the value of having mechanics to help realize the non-adventuring parts of the character. In my games, I apply an ad hoc +5 skilled modifier to checks where the character's background would give them proficiency, but I understand how many folks want something more concrete than a DM's ad hoc adjustments.
It seems to me that a two-tiered skill system is the right solution here. I'd keep the core list as it is, and change the optional background feature to allow players to use 2-3 background "slots" to either add a relevant core-skill to their class list or to pick from a large (and expandable) list of skills relating to craft, profession or non-adventuring areas of knowledge. If 5e feats are appropriate for non-combat enhancements, it would be reasonable to allow a feat that gives a substantial bonus to a single non-combat skill so you could play "one of the world's great blacksmiths" or something to that effect.
-KS
I would like to see Initiative removed and be replaced by Perception.
Jack99
Adventurer
Because Perception isn't already the best skill?
Only by 5987 miles.
This short message was brought to you by Tapatalk and my iPad
Tony Vargas
Legend
Keeping the skill list small - and the skills fairly broad - is a really good idea. Not just for D&D, but for games in general. Skill proliferation is a bane of good game design, it creates incompetence - each additional skill is another thing your character /can't do/, unless he invests in the skill.
Maybe '5e' or just 'better D&D' really needs 3 siloes, rather than tiers. You get combat abilities that support your combat role in one 'silo' - that's all your basic attack bonuses and defenses, hps/surges, and attack powers and so forth. The, you get a separate customizeable pool of non-combat options - skills, utility powers, rituals, etc - that support, perhaps, a formal non-combat role. Finally, you get a separate set of customizeable 'background' choices that let you customize your character's non-adventuring aptitudes, knacks, traits and quirks. The key is that you can't swap from one 'silo' to another. No sacrificing combat effectiveness for non-combat, or overall effectiveness for a detailed background.
