D&D General When Was it Decided Fighters Should Suck at Everything but Combat?

[Micah Sweet]

I personally prefer the 1d10 bonus to any check rather than the pretty specific circumstantial bonuses that knacks give you. It comes online for everything earlier and has more impact. Through I think the knacks are in themselves interesting.

Well, a bonus to any check is a straight upgrade for the player, so as a player I'm sure that would be preferred. But to me it severely lack flavor and setting logic that I really value, as both a player and a Narrator.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The game needed a way to resolve characters being good at things other than combat, and basing it entirely on attributes is overly simplistic.

If a DM had a way to handle that, what they had done was homebrew a “skill system.”

You don't need to base it on actual granular skills, though.

In Shadowdark, characters get advantage on anything they might reasonably be able to do, based their background, class or ancestry. Those three axes provide plenty of differentiation among fighters and no one needs to be worrying about how many points they put in Climb and if they can afford to put any points into Heraldry.

D&D has had backgrounds since at least the 1E DMG but never really leveraged them well until 5E. Something like the Shadowdark system could have been implemented long ago without adding significant complexity to the game -- certainly less than non-weapon proficiencies and later skills added.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You don't need to base it on actual granular skills, though.

In Shadowdark, characters get advantage on anything they might reasonably be able to do, based their background, class or ancestry. Those three axes provide plenty of differentiation among fighters and no one needs to be worrying about how many points they put in Climb and if they can afford to put any points into Heraldry.

D&D has had backgrounds since at least the 1E DMG but never really leveraged them well until 5E. Something like the Shadowdark system could have been implemented long ago without adding significant complexity to the game -- certainly less than non-weapon proficiencies and later skills added.

I have mixed feelings about backgrounds as a skill stand-in, I have to say; even if they're pre-defined by the system they're used in they can produce a lot more of a guessing game than I'm fond of as a GM, and its even worse if they're user defined.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have mixed feelings about backgrounds as a skill stand-in, I have to say; even if they're pre-defined by the system they're used in they can produce a lot more of a guessing game than I'm fond of as a GM, and its even worse if they're user defined.

Agreed. I definitely prefer something more granular for that area.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Agreed. I definitely prefer something more granular for that area.

I don't even insist on granularity; I'm okay with the skill system in Savage Worlds which defaults to awfully chunky. But its still pretty clearly defined, which backgrounds don't tend to be.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't even insist on granularity; I'm okay with the skill system in Savage Worlds which defaults to awfully chunky. But its still pretty clearly defined, which backgrounds don't tend to be.

Fair enough. I prefer definition and granularity, but definition is a must.

 

[Scribe]

You don't need to base it on actual granular skills, though.

In Shadowdark, characters get advantage on anything they might reasonably be able to do, based their background, class or ancestry. Those three axes provide plenty of differentiation among fighters and no one needs to be worrying about how many points they put in Climb and if they can afford to put any points into Heraldry.

D&D has had backgrounds since at least the 1E DMG but never really leveraged them well until 5E. Something like the Shadowdark system could have been implemented long ago without adding significant complexity to the game -- certainly less than non-weapon proficiencies and later skills added.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I have mixed feelings about backgrounds as a skill stand-in, I have to say; even if they're pre-defined by the system they're used in they can produce a lot more of a guessing game than I'm fond of as a GM, and its even worse if they're user defined.

Eh, if your table is having drama over whether someone's soldier background should give them advantage on a roll to recognize the flag of a foreign nation, your group is probably not destined to last anyway. At the end of the day, it's just advantage, not an automatic pass.