What Skill System Did You Like?

41 posts / 0 new
Last post

While less than happy about the skill system used in D&DN I did like the following s20 skill systems some more than others. For those of you who are unfamiliar with them I will include a brief description of the way they were run and some subjective cons of each one as none of them were perfect.

 The concept of bounded accuracy if tweaked could make some of these hum.

2nd Ed
 Second ed did not have skills as such but it did use ability checks and non weapon proficiencies. AN optional rule allowed characters with a high intelligece to take extra non weapon proficiencies and a high intelligence warrior type could take extra weapon proficiencies instead. Thieves did have a basic skill system that was later divourced from classes in 3.0.

 Cons.
 It was not really a skill system as such and you had to roll under your ability score to pull something off peraps at a penalty if it was difficult.

3.5.

 The 3.5 system used skill points where as you leveled up each class got XYZ amount of skill points you could spend on selecting skills from your class list. A fighter or wizard for example got 2 skill points a level while a Rogue got 8. Bonus skill points were granted for high intelligence, and at level one your skill points were multiplied by 4. Overall id did kind of work.

 Cons.
  Some spells obsoleted skill checks (knock) and skill points got fiddly. There was also a huge extreme between classes that got 2 skill points and others that got 8 skill points. Some skills were also better off consolidated.

 Star Wars Saga Edition.

 A personal favourite of mine the basic system was half your level and add 5 if you were trained in a skill essentially identical to 4th eds system. Due to a change in genre new skills were added (use computer, pilot, use the force) and skills were consolidated from 3.5 (Stealth, Perception, Deception etc). Bonus skills for high intelligence were granted. Skills were integrated into class abilities and races  to a greater extent than other d20 games. Probably the best non combat system on this list.

 Cons.
Jedi were the only class that had 2 trained skills (3-6 should have been the range IMHO). Skill focus use the force was very silly as skill checks were used for force powers. There was also a very large gap between someone who was trained/specialised and someone who was not. At level 1 for example being trained and having skill focus gave you a +10 to a skill check (+ ability score mod) while some races also had a +5 racial bonus (+15 lvl 1). Perception was a no brainer skill (spot, listen, search, and sense motive rolled into 1). Starting as a high skill class and being trained in lots of skills and then multiclassing was rewarded mechanically.

4th Ed
  4th ed had a very good skill system for the most part despite somethings like skill challenges maybe not working as intended. It used the same system as Star Wars Saga (half level +5 if trained). 4th ed characters did not gain bonus skills for being intelligent. Some utility powers granted bonuses to skill checks as well. Backgrounds and themes were used which were interesting. Overall 4th ed had a very good skill system that may not have been implemented that well in places (subjective though).

Cons.
Similar to Saga regarding specialisation but with less problems caused via racial bonuses. Every class had some skills pre selected which in most cases you would want anyway but not all of the time. Every rogue for example has thievery trained regardless of your back ground. Could have used a few more skills IMHO and the non combat aspects of 4th ed were overshadowed by the power structure of the game.

Pathfinder
 Resembles 3.5 at first glance with skill points (ok skill ranks, same thing really) but they have been fine tuned.  Each class has XYZ aount of skills and when you spend a skill point on a skill you gain a +3 bonus for being trained in it. Skills have been consolidated and traits (back grounds really) can give you a bonus to skills and access to skills not normally on your class list. Alot of the traits have also been tied to the Pathfinder campaign world. Some classes  also have skill use tied to class abilites.Bards for exampe get to add half their evel to knowledge skills and use perform to duplicate other skills.

 Cons
 Someof the new skills are just silly/to situational (fly). Perception is a super skill although not quite as bad as Star Wars Saga mostly due to every class in Saga having access to it. Some people may also not like PF retention of skill points. Otherwise PF has siilar problems with skills as 3.5.

In conclusion this is a brief summary of the last 4 versions of D&D and Star Wars Saga and the way they have dealt with skills. All of them have their pros and cons. 3 of them are what I consider "good" at least in the way they run things. Second and and 3.5 have either not aged well or the other 3 havejust doe things better IMHO. 4th Ed/Saga are very similar in skill use the main differences cming down to genre and class construction while Pathfinder uses a refined 3.5 system.

 Personally I would like a refined Saga/4th ed skill system for D&DN.  Make the numbers smaller (half level +3 for being trained, skill focus grants advantage maybe). Make intellignece more than a dump stat for everyone who is not a wizard. Some classes should also have more skils than others classes but they seem to be rewarding Rogue types alot more than every other class as its back to the I have twice as many skills as every other class a'la 3.XYZ. At least its not X4 skills (2 vs 8) of 3rd ed I suppose. 4-8 skills should be the range for most classes (or 3-6 if skills are consolidated like Saga/4th ed)

 I'm not to worried about skills being tied to class if back grounds/themes/traits etc let you gain access to skills one normally would not have access to.
I'm all for 3-6 skills per class and bonus skill training per class level in adition to level based training.

I.E. a fighter could get skill training every 6 levels and rogue every 3

skill training would be:

+4(minimum d20 roll   5) - skill training
+3(minimum d20 roll   8) - skill focus
+2(minimum d20 roll 10) - skill mastery
+1(minimum d20 roll 12) - skill grand mastery



Personally I would like a refined Saga/4th ed skill system for D&DN.


+1
And if they can't come up with something like this, take the 4E version at least. Easy to use, easy to narrate, easy to play.
Pathfinder's +3 for having any points in a skill pretty significantly altars the way that many characters want to spend skill points. In 3.5, you tend to want to cluster your skill points pretty tightly; it's not uncommon for many characters to just spend their points on the same things almost every level, unless they're multiclassing or are only investing enough points into something to qualify for a PrC. (3.5 used skills as a gating mechanism for some PrCs, often offbeat or unusual skills, meaning that it was useful to know what PrC you were shooting for from early on.) Since some tasks can often only be handled by one person at a time depending on the circumstances, being second best at many skills isn't terribly valuable. (Not worthless by any means, but often less valuable than putting those points into a more unique skill.) In PF, however, a single point in a skill gets you +4 to relevant checks, so any skill that you might need to maybe ever attempt is a great place to drop a point. A skill point is among the least valuable and most abundant character resources, so getting +4 to a kind of check for only one of them is an awesome return. (Skill points being a relatively abundant resource and of relatively low value, incidentally, is why putting Attribute points into Charisma is normally a trap, barring class features that run off of it.)
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
 I have noticed that as well Lesp in Pathfiner. More skill monkey type characters floating around. With high ability scores that 1 skill popints often gets you a +6/7 bonus.

 In a way the PCs feel a bit more organic. A few of them are dropping the occasional skill point into craft and profession skills. The bard is dropping points into every knowledge skill.

 As a general rule I prefer the Saga rules but I am liking that part of PF alot. Its alos why I consider Saga, 4th ed and PF to have good skil systems compared to 2nd ed and 3.5.
Personally, I don't much mind the current 5e set-up. It similar enough to 3e & 4e just adjusted to bounded accuracy (so a +3 instead of +5 for trained). You still get ranks but they're divorced from class, which I think it for the better as it gives you a base-line that class (or race, or specialty, etc.) could build on to.

Personally, I miss Skill Synergies from 3e. It makes sense to me that certain levels of achievement in this or that skill would reinforce other similar skills to some extent. 

Likewise, I feel like they should really do a whole skills module, where you have 3-4 levels of complexity in the skill system, going from pure ability checks, to a condensed 4e/saga list, to a more traditional list, to no list. With things like detailed crafting rules, performance guidelines, skill powers/manuevers, and so on. 

I also think overall, they should settle at PC's having about about 15-20% of ALL the available skills trained, presently, most classes are much lower than that since they expanded the list. This way, with careful planning, a party could have most of them covered.

I also like the idea of class/cross-class skills, which could maybe stand alongside the default rank system they have now as a simple multiplier for ranks placed into that skill. 

I like D&DNs skill system! Really, I do. I think it's a real nice evolution of the 1e/2e skill system that could really be fun. It just needs a bit of fine tuning and testing, but the basis we have is really fun.
My two copper.
Pathfinder's +3 for having any points in a skill pretty significantly altars the way that many characters want to spend skill points.



I feel like I should point out that this is only true for class skills.


That said, I like granular skill systems.  Whether it's Hackmaster's build point-based skill buying, 3.X/PF's skill points, AD&D Player's Option: Skills & Powers character points, whatever, I like granular point-based systems.  I strongly dislike Saga/4E's 'half level to everything' part of the skill system and I don't really much like the trained/not trained being the sole split either.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
I like the 4e saga skill systems with one exception. I do not necessarily think +1/2 level to everything is the way to go.

I think 5e should go for +1/4 level to trained skills only could work though. This gives PCs slight advancement in what they are good at without automatically increasing skills they have no training for.
I'll just keep on trucking hoping they don't go back to a 3e/4e style of skill system. Hope they stick to their guns!
My two copper.
I think the half level thing was to partly close the gap between being useless. A 20th level fighter in an untrained skill is about as good as a 1st level fighter being untrained.

 3.0 through to 4th ed and Saga heavily rewarded specialisation in some skills. Saga and 4th in theory closed the gap but a +5 modifier for being trained and skill focus is huge and in 4th ed the opportunity cost for skill focus is large. Saga gave out more feats and skill focus in several skills was often a good idea but it made others semi useless.

 Not sayingone can't reward specialisation to some extent as it has existed in all D&D ediitons but say +3 for being trained (D&DN/Pathfinder) and maybe advantages of +2 in two skills ofr skill focus is kind of minimising this. Having +5 over someone else is a good advantage, +10-20 is just a blowout.
I don't like the DDN system at all. Some things are not possible to untrained people, even with a lot of time before them.

With some differences about detail, I agree with the ranking of Zardnaar, but I think something better could be done. 
The current system is nice.
Tweak the skill list and raise the DMG DCs by 3 and eerything works.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I like the 4e saga skill systems with one exception. I do not necessarily think +1/2 level to everything is the way to go. I think 5e should go for +1/4 level to trained skills only could work though. This gives PCs slight advancement in what they are good at without automatically increasing skills they have no training for.



The problem with that is that it means that the gap between trained/untrained skills grows as you level.  That means you're forced to either never challenge trained characters or use DCs that are unattainable for untrained characters, in a world where the core is supposed to be the ability check.  I think 5e's schtick about "it's ability checks now, not skill checks" is overplayed but a step in the right direction.  When you add a narrow skill system to rapidly growing divide between skilled and unskilled characters, you end up with characters who can't do anything they aren't trained in, which isn't much.  Now 1/4 level isn't that rapid, especially if you assume we're only ever going to play to 12 (which, for some reason, the designers have decided is what everyone does).  But frankly I think the 1/8 level we've got now (every other level raising one of four skills = 1/8) is too fast for a truely ability-check based system.  I don't think the gap should grow at all.  
I imagine a character sheet with the six abilities and their bonuses along the left edge, and next to each is a box containing a list of the most common/core skills associated with that ability score. There would be a space before each skill name, where the player could write in +3 if their background/class/etc. gives them such a bonus. When a PC wants to use a skill, they just roll with the ability modifier if untrained or use both the modifier and the +3 if trained.

Some skills will be core enough to list on the basic character sheet, yet for one reason or another would be highly difficult for someone without training to accomplish. Use Magic Device could be one, just as a wild example. These skills could be printed in a dark grey color rather than stark black, or somehow otherwise made clear that a certain penalty applies when using that skill untrained (or might even be impossible to perform untrained, rules and/or DM depending).

A blank space or two could also be on the sheet, for writing in less common skills that only special training or very specific classes/backgrounds have access to. Of course, if you're making blank sheets for each class or background these could be pre-filled in.

When leveling up, depending on class and level you could have the option to train in new skills. You could also have the option to increase the bonus on an already trained skill.

What the numbers/statistics are and the rate of improvement I leave to the pros to determine. I personally prefer a tighter system though, where characters of different levels are not that incredibly different in power. So, I'd be all for a limit to how high the bonuses can get (maybe +7 max?), after which improving it again might give you Advantage, then it couldn't be improved any further beyond magical or divine means. But that's just my own aesthetic preference of course.
Not a fan of 4e's half-level to checks, despite liking the skill system overall. It feels wrong that someone becomes gradually really good at, like, hiding or something as they become greater and greater as a paladin. There's reasonable explanations for at least some general improvement, but it doesn't seem important and it has the weird side effect of making a lot of things with fixed DCs barely worth having training in after a while since it's not necessary.

Also not a fan of 3.5's increasing gap between the abilities of people who can do something and the abilities of people who can't. There eventually comes a point where you can't really have an obstacle that's easy for the trained guy and difficult of the untrained guy. It's either trivial for the trained guy or impossible for the untrained guy. Granted, that doesn't really become that big of a deal until levels where the system math has broken down in just about every other way, but it's still something that's a little awkward.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I actually do like D&DN's skill system. I want to group/cut-down the number of skills (akin to the first playtest). But, overall I enjoy it. If another game's skill mechanics are used, I would like to see 4e's (-1/2 level bonus as others have mentioned).
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
In 3.5, you tend to want to cluster your skill points pretty tightly; it's not uncommon for many characters to just spend their points on the same things almost every level, unless they're multiclassing or are only investing enough points into something to qualify for a PrC.


That is pretty much true of d20 Modern/Future/Horror and such. You find that the difference +10, +15 or +20 is critical to your mission and that everyone eventually focuses on being skill specialists. One will be the Driver, another the Computer Guy, and another the Medic (Treat Injury). Others will have skill in these, but not nearly what the speicialist does.

My opinion has always been that 4E kind of took away that super specialization for skills. But that is just me.

You may know ALL the rules, but I KNOW the Spirit of the Game.

I like the 4e saga skill systems with one exception. I do not necessarily think +1/2 level to everything is the way to go. I think 5e should go for +1/4 level to trained skills only could work though. This gives PCs slight advancement in what they are good at without automatically increasing skills they have no training for.



The problem with that is that it means that the gap between trained/untrained skills grows as you level.  That means you're forced to either never challenge trained characters or use DCs that are unattainable for untrained characters, in a world where the core is supposed to be the ability check.  I think 5e's schtick about "it's ability checks now, not skill checks" is overplayed but a step in the right direction.  When you add a narrow skill system to rapidly growing divide between skilled and unskilled characters, you end up with characters who can't do anything they aren't trained in, which isn't much.  Now 1/4 level isn't that rapid, especially if you assume we're only ever going to play to 12 (which, for some reason, the designers have decided is what everyone does).  But frankly I think the 1/8 level we've got now (every other level raising one of four skills = 1/8) is too fast for a truely ability-check based system.  I don't think the gap should grow at all.  



The difference between a skilled and unskilled attempt at the highest level possible (20) is only +5 with a +1/4 level bonus.  This means a task that an untrained level 20 adventurer could accomplish only on a 20, a trained individual accomplishes on a 15+.  For a task an untrained individual could accomplish on a 10+ the trained individual does it on a 5+.  A +5 difference is quite small when compared to the differences found in 3e and 4e.

Ideally, I would like a 4e skill system where training grants an additional d20 roll instead of any numerical bonus.  Then all PCs get to add 1/4 level to all trained skill rolls.  This way you don't have a paladin getting better at sneaking just because he is level 20, unless he went out of his way to train stealth.
I like the way they're doing skills so far in 5e, though a few improvements are still needed.

* They need a much better skill list.

* Characters need more skills. 3-4 skills, IMO, results in shallow characters. More importantly, characters need to be able to learn new skills as they go up in level. The way I understand the rules in the playtest packets so far, all you can do is add bonuses to existing skills every even level. You never get more skills. That needs to change. 

* Players need to be able to choose their character's skills. I like how characters get skills from their background, but players should be able to choose from a list, and perhaps get a couple additional choices on top of that. Not every blacksmith or thief should have the exact same skills!

* Skills need to do more than give a mere +3 bonus. A trained person should have more than a +15% chance of success over an untrained person. I realize they don't want the huge gap between untrained and skilled people that existed and past editions, and I agree with that goal. But at the same time, training in a skill needs to be more meaningful. A typical cleric shouldn't be better than a typical ranger at survival because clerics tend to have much higher Wisdom scores. I think skill traiing should be increased to +5, as it was in 4e and saga. A +25% chance to succeed is significant without being overpowering.
I'm just holding out until they update skills. Most people still don't understand what they are trying to do with skills, they know this and are going to address it with the update
My two copper.
I'm all for 3-6 skills per class and bonus skill training per class level in adition to level based training.

I.E. a fighter could get skill training every 6 levels and rogue every 3

skill training would be:

+4(minimum d20 roll   5) - skill training
+3(minimum d20 roll   8) - skill focus
+2(minimum d20 roll 10) - skill mastery
+1(minimum d20 roll 12) - skill grand mastery


Getting rid of tying skills to classes is one of the best things they've done with Next.  I really don't want to see us backslide into tying them together.
There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

As for my favorite skill system, I have to go with the skill system from the Cinematic Unisystem games (BtVS, Army of Darkness, etc.)  A small selection of broad-based skills.  You combine different key attributes with the skills depending on your task.  For example, they have 1 skill called Crime.  You can use Dex + Crime to move stealthily, but you can also use Int + Crime to disable electronic security systems.

As far as my favorite D&D skill system, I have to go with 4e.  Again, we're talking about broad skills.  While it does need to be tweaked, it really doesn't need much work.  Maybe reduce the skill advancement from +1 per 2 levels to +1 per 5 levels (or you could change it so that you get a +1 bonus to one skill of your choice every two levels instead of to all your skills).  And maybe the training bonus should be dropped to a +4 or +3.  Other than tweaking the math, and being able to use different attributes for different skill uses, the 4e skill system was perfect for me.
There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

For what they're trying to do, I overall like the current setup for skills in DDN. I don't think it's quite perfect, but it's not finished yet either, so I'm hoping for some evolution on that front.

Outside of D&D, I prefer the Storytelling System of Skills, dividing into Mental/Physical/Social (nine Skills each). They cover pretty much anything you'd need to do, and couple with an Attribute determined by the action you want to do. Shoot a gun? Dexterity + Firearms. Inspect a gun for defects? Intelligence (or perhaps Wits) + Firearms. With nine Attributes (3 each in Mental/Physical/Social groupings again), and a total of 27 Skills, that covers anything you're going to want to do, and fits in the system very well. 

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

The thing I liked about 4e's skill system was the idea of pretty broad adventurer skills and the potential that the skill challenges opened up (even if the implimentation needed work the premise was solid)
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

What really needs to happen is they need to organize the skills by how often they are likely to be used and then give each background 2-3 of each category.

I see things like Crafting, Profession, etc...etc... as really rarely used skills that only happen during downtime. Then there are situational skills like rope use, or open locks, that belong in the situational category. Then there are skills like spot, listen, smell, touch, and search that get used fairly often by everyone and have a wide range of uses.

If they did that they could give 2 from each category.

I'd put them in categories like this:

Rarely Used
Profession
Survival
Perform (which really should be a profession)

Situational
Balance
Climb
Disable Device
Disguise
Drive
Escape Artist
Gather Rumors
Handle Animal
Knowledge
Ride
Swim
Track
Tumble
Use Rope

Broadly Useful or Commonly Used
Bluff
Heal
Intimidate
Listen
Persuade
Search
Sense Motive
Sleight of Hand
Sneak
Spot

Now some might argue that certain skills need to be put in different categories, and that's fine, but generally people are going to use spot, search, and listen way more than Profession (underwater basket weaver). You shouldn't be punished by having to choose between them. They need to be in separate categories...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I like D&DNs skill system! Really, I do. I think it's a real nice evolution of the 1e/2e skill system that could really be fun. It just needs a bit of fine tuning and testing, but the basis we have is really fun.


+1

An improved list of skills is all that's needed yet; and I think that will come naturally. 
I'm just holding out until they update skills. Most people still don't understand what they are trying to do with skills, they know this and are going to address it with the update



Pretty much this.
According to Mr. Crawford, we aren't supposed to have the bonus from skill used often.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

What really needs to happen is they need to organize the skills by how often they are likely to be used and then give each background 2-3 of each category.

I see things like Crafting, Profession, etc...etc... as really rarely used skills that only happen during downtime. Then there are situational skills like rope use, or open locks, that belong in the situational category. Then there are skills like spot, listen, smell, touch, and search that get used fairly often by everyone and have a wide range of uses.

If they did that they could give 2 from each category.

I'd put them in categories like this:

Rarely Used
Profession
Survival
Perform (which really should be a profession)

Situational
Balance
Climb
Disable Device
Disguise
Drive
Escape Artist
Gather Rumors
Handle Animal
Knowledge
Ride
Swim
Track
Tumble
Use Rope

Broadly Useful or Commonly Used
Bluff
Heal
Intimidate
Listen
Persuade
Search
Sense Motive
Sleight of Hand
Sneak
Spot

Now some might argue that certain skills need to be put in different categories, and that's fine, but generally people are going to use spot, search, and listen way more than Profession (underwater basket weaver). You shouldn't be punished by having to choose between them. They need to be in separate categories...


I like the idea of categorizing them by prevalence.

I agree that Perform should be the Bard's class feature; and should benefit the bard in certain skill checks. Replace it on your list with simple Acting (I've seen many people act, who can't perform). 

But please, no Use Rope Skill; it's just too abusable. Use Knots or Knot Tying are okay as a Skill, for those that want a rope specific skill; but some of the uses for Use Rope, that I've seen described on these forums, make it a Skill that can be used for anything, given a clever enough description.

EDIT: Edited for spelling. 
I'm just holding out until they update skills. Most people still don't understand what they are trying to do with skills, they know this and are going to address it with the update



Pretty much this.
According to Mr. Crawford, we aren't supposed to have the bonus from skill used often.


I agree with that premise. Characters get a bonus (or penalty) from the associated ability without skill training; skill training adds an additional bonus.
I greatly prefer the Weapon/Non-Weapon proficiancy system in 1e & 2e.

We (the groups I played with) only ever made 2 tweaks to this system at our tables;

1)
We dropped the cross-class points penalty.  Sure, some things were harder to learn than others.  But it was because they were more difficult to master, not just because you were x class.

2) We allowed non-thieves/assassins to buy those clases climb walls, hide in shadows, pick pockets, etc skills as non-weapon proficiencies.  You could buy the same skill as often as you liked (pts permitting).  Each time you did so?  That individual "thief skill" went up %wise just as if the PC were advancing as a thief..... 
Some thief skills cost 1 pt, others 2pts.  But I've long forgotten wich ones were wich.
  


Rarely Used

Situational

Broadly Useful or Commonly Used
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Now some might argue that certain skills need to be put in different categories, and that's fine, but generally people are going to use spot, search, and listen way more than Profession (underwater basket weaver). You shouldn't be punished by having to choose between them. They need to be in separate categories...




The way Jeremy Crawford explain it is that all skill are supped to be in the borrderlins of Rarely Usefully to Situtional.

Appraise
Balance
Befriend Ally
Climb
Demoralize
Disable Device
Disguise
Distract
Drive
Eavesdrop
Escape Artist
Find Traps
First Aid
Forgery
Gather Rumors
Handle Animal
Hear Sounds
Hide in Shadows
Hide Object
Move Silently
Negotiate Term
Listen for Sneaks
Perform
Profession
Knowledge
Read Body Language (read lips, sense poker faces and facial tells)
Ride
Scare
Spot Hidden
Search for Clues
Survival
Swim
Track
Tumble
Use Rope

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Someone learning how to move silently and hide in a city being able to do the same in any environment makes no sense. It's the same for survival working in desert as well as in a forest, and Streetwise is just another name for survival in a specific environment.

Just like Use Rope (there's a whole thread about it), everybody just knows some aspects of a skill as defined in DDN in relation to a profession or hobby. Even a sailor doesn't know all the possible uses of ropes. The same way, mastering the etiquette of high society is not a competence transposable to any social class without further "training".

The DDN skills are either too precise or not enough.

Credible restricted skills should be stealth (city), Stealth (forest), lying, acting, ride (type of animal), swim (lake), swim (river), swim (ocean), sail (river), sail (sea), Appraise (art), appraise (gems), and so on. 
@Mousier_Moustache

I would love such a system. The current Next +3 -+7 bonus and ultraspecific skills.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I'm all for 3-6 skills per class and bonus skill training per class level in adition to level based training.

I.E. a fighter could get skill training every 6 levels and rogue every 3

skill training would be:

+4(minimum d20 roll   5) - skill training
+3(minimum d20 roll   8) - skill focus
+2(minimum d20 roll 10) - skill mastery
+1(minimum d20 roll 12) - skill grand mastery


Getting rid of tying skills to classes is one of the best things they've done with Next.  I really don't want to see us backslide into tying them together.



but we backslided into that allready with rogue getting 4 skills extra.

And what is wrong with some classes having more skill than other.

should we complain that some classes get more HP or more spells?

different classes are different on more than one aspect.
The rogue getting more skills isn't backsliding.  Saying the rogue can only get these particular skills would be.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
As for my favorite skill system, I have to go with the skill system from the Cinematic Unisystem games (BtVS, Army of Darkness, etc.)  A small selection of broad-based skills.  You combine different key attributes with the skills depending on your task.  For example, they have 1 skill called Crime.  You can use Dex + Crime to move stealthily, but you can also use Int + Crime to disable electronic security systems.

As far as my favorite D&D skill system, I have to go with 4e.  Again, we're talking about broad skills.  While it does need to be tweaked, it really doesn't need much work.  Maybe reduce the skill advancement from +1 per 2 levels to +1 per 5 levels (or you could change it so that you get a +1 bonus to one skill of your choice every two levels instead of to all your skills).  And maybe the training bonus should be dropped to a +4 or +3.  Other than tweaking the math, and being able to use different attributes for different skill uses, the 4e skill system was perfect for me.


+1 ... 4E skill system is just fine.
I kinda dig the 5e system, where you have ability checks that can be modified by skills known, but the ability checks and skills are largely seperate so sometimes the skill bonus can apply to different ability checks.

Climbing down a mountain? Strength check. But you have Use Rope so add that.
Tying up a prisoner? Dexterity check. But Use Rope also applies.
Stormy sea and the ship's sails are out of control? Wisdom check for positioning the sales. But Use Rope would also still apply.

One of the biggest problems people have had with Diplomacy and Intimidate is the fact they were tied to Charisma. So if you made a logical and well-reasoned argument is still depended on how charming you were. Ditto trying to terify someone by being strong and menacing.  
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 



Now some might argue that certain skills need to be put in different categories, and that's fine, but generally people are going to use spot, search, and listen way more than Profession (underwater basket weaver). You shouldn't be punished by having to choose between them. They need to be in separate categories...



I can't agree with any categorization that tries to tell me how often I should be using any particular skill.

While sure, in an atypical adventure, things like Sneak and Listen might be used more often than, say, Persuade, if I'm running a more political style game, the opposite is more likely to be true. And that would be true of quite a few ways of dividing them up, so I don't really see the benefit of it. I greatly prefer the "anyone can try anything, some are just better at it" that the current skill system represents. I've gotten a lot more out of players trying things with it than I have in previous editions.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

While I found the 4e skill system adequate - it at least didn't commit the unpardonable sin of having an open-ended skill list - and 5e's isn't seeming too much worse (though it hasn't jelled get, so could /get/ a lot worse, I suppose), I still don't find that /any/ skill system really fits D&D.

In D&D, your character is defines primarily by his class & level (and, sure, race).  If you're a high-level wizard, you know everything there is to know about the arcane secrets of the universe and you can cast high-level spells.  Obviously, you know a lot of stuff to be able to do that, and having 'knowledge skills' that divide up various fields of study into 6 or dozen or an open-ended number of Knowledge _______ skills will leave your wizard with correspondingly more and bigger holes in his all-wise wizardliness.  The same goes for any class, really.  If you're a high level anything, you've been exposed to all sorts of experience, you've picked things up, and the things you're good at, you're /really/ good at.

There really shouldn't be skills.  Rather, there should be some sort of 'task resolution' system that takes into account your class, level, and stats.  Adding skills to that just creates these little areas of incompetence with each new skill.  It shouldn't matter if you took "monsters 101" in college and are thus 'trained' in some monster-identification skill, you've been fighting monsters and hanging out with other adventurers who fight monsters for 20 levels, you know monsters.  

 

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!