|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 8:01AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2007
|
Let’s talk about skills. Or, rather, let’s let Rob talk about skills. Designer Rob tackles a brief history of skills, then lets you take a peek at what’s going on with them in D&D Next.
Trevor Kidd
Community Manager
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 8:23AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
From the comments: Not bad. The thing I liked the most of 4E's skill system is that people could just try and actively use a skill to do stuff. Making a Religion check to summon a bloodgrem to scout ahead was ok because of the inherent balance of the skill system: it's not much different from making a Stealth check, only more in character.
By converting resolution mechanisms to ability scores, you are keeping much of this simplicity (except for the magical front... yeah I loathe Vancian and love 4E magic for this reason too). Not too bad. Also, traits seem nice, althogh a bit... fragile. Balancing them seems to be a nightmere, how do you plan to do that? Or will you just say "this is minor stuff to hell with balance"? Either way, we'll see how this comes out and what modules to ask in case it sucks.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 8:34AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2005
|
This clarifies some stuff for me in a very good way. It seems to divorce training from things that anyone should be capable of, such as climbing, yet still allows training to apply to things that I feel are training based, such as lockpicking. This almost gives a skill list infinitely large, and allows for creative use of ability scores. A rogue wants to climb on the shoulders of the fighter to be able to jump and reach a balcony. The rogue does a strength check to climb the fighter, the fighter does a strength check so he doesn't collapse under the weight. Then the rogue does another strength check to jump, and a Dex check to grab the ledge. Completely non standard action, but doable.
Traits can have the ability to turn out being way under or over powered. In the case of the shop owner does that mean that anytime you make an item you have to travel to that shop? It's fine if all adventures are around the one town, but if you are doing a world spanning adventure it is probably prohibitive to travel 300 miles just to make a new longsword.
If traits are very minor overall though, having them perfectly balanced may not be an issue at all.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 8:55AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2012
|
This sounds interesting, and I look forward to seeing how it works during the Playtest. That being said, I hope that the playtest materials give a generous list or example of themes, backgrounds, traits and affiliated skills and task resolution examples.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 9:26AM
#5
|
|
|
I'm good with this, though the 'Workshop' trait seems awful to me. I'd rather have a trait that says something like, "craftsmen," and that if you're in a town with a crafthall or workshop, you can use the forge with the shop owner's permission, and any bonuses or discounts you get apply here as well. It may be that the shop owner will charge a nominal fee, but it will typically be low enough (except from a very shrewd shop owner) that your discount or bonus still matters.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 9:48AM
#6
|
|
|
I need to see this flushed out more to form an opinion. I am tentatively pessimistic at the moment. There are just some skills that require training and/or practice.
Strength definitely contributes to climbing, but anyone can climb. Someone trained in climbing is superior. But trained climbers don't necessarily need to be strong. I expect climbing to be a skill in the PHB.
Dexterity contributes to juggling, but not anyone can juggle. No matter how dextrous, one needs to practice juggling or needs to be trained in juggling in order to be able to juggle. I don't necessarily expect juggling to be a skill in the PHB.
The question, as with everything else, is how far down the rabbit hole do we want to go? Or, do we simply leave it up to a discussion between player and DM to come up with a list of skills that the player is trained in and which abilities apply?
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 10:03AM
#7
|
|
|
ill have to see something set on paper and in play to be able to really give feedback. like an above poster i dont want any of this to be too overpowered. i did not like the first talk that came from the designers about hand waving certain things such as long jumps. i usually like a chance of failure when using skills, not automatic abilities
i would like players to get to pick their skills and not have the choices just premade for them. it sounds like that will be the case so that is a positive
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 10:03AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
I like this. In both 3rd and 4E, the difference between the experts and the untrained was too large. Even at level 1 you could have people with a +12 (20 stat, training, racial bonus) or even more (with backgrounds or a feat) and others with a -1 (8 stat) or even lower (with armor check penalty). This created the impression that you needed a huge bonus to even attempt something.
By scaling it back and having the focus on ability scores, the differences become smaller. If the best guy only has a +6, making your check even at a -1 is more plausible. So making skill training only give a +2, and making skills more limited in scope (it sounds like you might get a +2 to climbing, rather than all athletics checks, but I could be wrong on that) is a good step. To take it a step further, I would avoid giving races skill bonuses that align with their stat bonuses. All this does it encourage extreme specialization that leads to major differences between trained and untrained.
For example, elves in 4E gain a +2 to Wisdom. So they are already going to have a better perception score. They then gain a +2 racial bonus to perception. And elves are very well suited to many classes that both use Wisdom and can train in perception. So from the ground up, the entire system seems to encourage players to min/max when it comes to skills.
The way I see it, when a race gets a bonus to a stat, you are already saying that they are better at the skills that relate to that stat. Dwarves are tough and hardy; they gain a bonus to Con. They don't also need an extra bonus to endurance.
So while I think this sounds like an excellent system (both in terms of skills and traits), care must be taken to prevent it from devolving in to the same situation that occurred in the past.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 10:10AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
skill always refers to a specific task: climbing, charm, deception, and so on. If you have training, you get a +2 bonus to any check made that involves that task.
Question what happens if tasks overlap ?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 10:11AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
I need to see this flushed out more to form an opinion. I am tentatively pessimistic at the moment. There are just some skills that require training and/or practice.
Strength definitely contributes to climbing, but anyone can climb. Someone trained in climbing is superior. But trained climbers don't necessarily need to be strong. I expect climbing to be a skill in the PHB.
Dexterity contributes to juggling, but not anyone can juggle. No matter how dextrous, one needs to practice juggling or needs to be trained in juggling in order to be able to juggle. I don't necessarily expect juggling to be a skill in the PHB.
The question, as with everything else, is how far down the rabbit hole do we want to go? Or, do we simply leave it up to a discussion between player and DM to come up with a list of skills that the player is trained in and which abilities apply?
This is why he talked about stats representing BOTH innate skill and training. You can describe how your character can do the stuff he does. Your character with the 16 strength is a good climber, but is it because he is just strong enough to pull himself up, or is it because he has the skill to climb well?
Same with Dex and juggling. Your character might be able to juggle because he is just that good at manual dexterity, or it could be that he has practiced every day. In either case, the result is the same: he has a +3 bonus to juggling checks because of his 16 Dex.
This has nothing to do with going down a rabbit hole. You don't have to have a discussion to come up with a list of skills; as they have set it forth, your background determines the skills in which you have extra training. Beyond that, you can do anything you can think of. I'm guessing the PHB will include a list of examples for things that might be done with each stat, as every PHB has done. And beyond that, as always, the DM will just have to make a judgement call.
Lastly, always remember that you control your character. If you don't want your 16 Dex character to be good at juggling, then don't have him juggle! You can always auto fail a check. The DM isn't going to say, "Sorry, you have to roll." Want your 16 Str dwarf to be a terrible swimmer? Just don't make swim checks! Say, "Guys! I can't swim!"
|
|
|
