D&D 5E WOTC I Love Skills and Backgrounds

[Evenglare]

If you like the way skills are done, check out 13th age.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I'm fond of backgrounds. I mostly like skills, but I'd prefer if they had named ranks as opposed to granular bonus increases. A rank would still equate to a bonus, but it helps me define a character on the fly if I can think in real-world terms like novice and expert.

 

[Halivar]

I'm fond of backgrounds. I mostly like skills, but I'd prefer if they had named ranks as opposed to granular bonus increases. A rank would still equate to a bonus, but it helps me define a character on the fly if I can think in real-world terms like novice and expert.

I'm sympathetic to this idea, but I think it would be too much of a departure for a brand that has suffered from too many recent departures already.

 

[Storminator]

I like the idea of breaking the skills from an ability. The idea that you can just use whatever ability makes sense and add the skill bonus is great. Search vs Spot I'm looking at you!

I also like the very quick single decision on a background and you're done. Seems great for pick up games.

PS

 

[RangerWickett]

I preferred the old idea where skills came in ranks, from 0 to 6.

0 - Untrained
1 - Novice
2 - Proficient
3 - Adept
4 - Expert
5 - Master
6 - Pinnacle

If you wanted to do something, the GM would say what rank of skill was needed to accomplish it with ease. If you have that rank, boom, you succeed. If you are short by 1, make an ability check (DC 10). If you're short by 2, make an ability check (DC 20).

Whatever happened to that idea?

 

[Kinak]

I really like the basics of backgrounds and how they interact with skills. I wish the skill bonus was just larger.

For comparison, a trained skill at first level is a +6 difference in 3rd/Pathfinder (-2 untrained to +4 trained). In Next, that's only a +3 difference, which doesn't serve to differentiate people on a d20 unless that skill is rolled all the time.

I really like the traits too, whatever they want to call them. They're like class powers for non-combat activities, which is sorely-needed if we're actually going to have a game that handles non-combat and combat activities equally.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I preferred the old idea where skills came in ranks, from 0 to 6.

0 - Untrained
1 - Novice
2 - Proficient
3 - Adept
4 - Expert
5 - Master
6 - Pinnacle

If you wanted to do something, the GM would say what rank of skill was needed to accomplish it with ease. If you have that rank, boom, you succeed. If you are short by 1, make an ability check (DC 10). If you're short by 2, make an ability check (DC 20).

Whatever happened to that idea?

I certainly think it was an interesting idea, though I feel that the ranks are too granular for D&D. I'd prefer:

Untrained +0
Proficient +2
Expert +4
Master +6

I would also like to use this progression for attack bonuses.

 

[Warbringer]

I certainly think it was an interesting idea, though I feel that the ranks are too granular for D&D. I'd prefer:

Untrained +0
Proficient +2
Expert +4
Master +6

I would also like to use this progression for attack bonuses.

hmm... there is something in herently nice in this; for balance AC and defenses should follow the same basic progression.

It a good design sandbox

 

[Warbringer]

If you like the way skills are done, check out 13th age.

I'd love to, if it ever gets out of "pre-order" status (Imissed the KS)

 

[ren1999]

I like all of your ideas but I would like to revise them a little and see what you think. We would see a description of each skill in the Player's Handbook like this.

Keep all the progressions for skills at +3 or -3 so they are easy to remember.

The skill titles would be like this. You earn +1 to a skill every other level-up.
You get an automatic +3 when you are trained, which makes you Proficient. Once you get +6, you earn the title Adept.

Novice +0
Proficient +3
Adept +6
Expert +9
Master +12

In the Dungeon Master's Guide, there will be each skill listed with an Easy DC10, Moderate DC13, Hard, Very Hard, and Formidable description.

Then there will be a 4th Edition Style listing of 3 possible described outcomes.
If you roll -3 or lower and fail, there are negative consequences.
If you roll the target or 1 or 2 more than the target, you succeed.
If you roll +3 or higher and succeed, there are benefits.