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.

 

[Bill Zebub]

As I said, that might work for some things. I flat out don't think its going to resolve whether someone can climb something or swim.

Sure, you still sometimes roll for those things, perhaps with an attribute modifier. But the more things you resolve through narration (e.g. finding alternatives so you don't have to swim or climb, or at least do so a relatively unchallenging way that doesn't require a dice roll) then it doesn't feel like you're constantly rolling +attribute, and thus it feels less like you need a more robust/nuanced system.

Or to the degree it can, if you wanted to do that you could do it with fighting, too. (In fact, I'll flat out say someone could probably do a better job of resolving combat with narration than trying to do so with swimming).

I agree, sometimes that does work. "I cast an illusion of a road runner, and when the were-coyote approaches we cut the rope, dropping the cold iron anvil on him." But IMO combat works well with dice rolling because it involves multiple people rolling dice multiple times and...this is key...choosing from among various possible actions based on the state of the battle. I don't really see that very much outside of combat. I would love to, but haven't.

If I were playing an RPG in which combat was resolved by the character with the highest combat skill making a single dice roll, and that determined whether the party won or lost, then...yeah...I'd be leaning more into narration for combat if that were the case.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

While I wasn't talking about D&D in specific, I don't consider 5e Advantage trivial as a benefit.