|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 10:20AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2012
|
This seems good. As long as I'm able to use a standard 'empty' background and fill it with any skill or trait I want in any combination (4 skills, 3 skills/1 trait or 4 traits, for example), I'm glad with the system. My concern is about the bonuses provided by skills. Some degree of leveling should be possible regardless of class bonus and feats. There's a huge difference between some common guy who can pick locks due training (a lv1 Ranger, for example) and a master lockpicker (a lv 13 Rogue). The same +1 skill bonus for both doesn't seems right. Just as BAB will naturally scale slowly, skills should also scale slowly too. Something like once every 3 levels, you add +1 to a skill you already possess, or choose gain access to a new skill. On top of that, I'm curious to see if there will be any restriction to untrained skill use. Just because a character is smart, it doesn't mean he can disable a trap or indentify a complex arcane symbol. These are tasks that only specialists (trained in skill) people could afford to do. Maybe I'm thinking too old school here, though. Hope that the playtest can throw some light on these topics.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 10:20AM
#12
|
|
|
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?
And how do you explain it when someone is skill far surpasses someone's strength, and the one with higher strength is better at climbing? A cat is not particularly strong at all, but just about every cat I've ever seen is better at climbing than any person I have seen. A cat is a highly skilled climber, no?
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.
But someone should not be good at juggling just because they have a high dex. That's my point. Yes, you are more apt to become a good juggler with a high dex, but having a high dex does not make you one.
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!"
I am not worried about this scenario. I am worried about the opposite. "Why yes, I do happen to be a trapeze artist. See my 16 dex."
Like I said, I need to see it flushed out. This is one of the rare items that I do not like the direction it is heading in.
Keep in mind that I am looking for a very robust, thorough skill system.
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 - 10:20AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
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.
I think the workshop thing is supposed to be taken in addition to something that makes you a craftsman like say I am a blacksmith. when I get a chance I take this trait. Now when I am in my home town I always have what I need to do the smithing and I need not bargain with anyone to use their forge. Now another social based trait that opens doors and will let you get into other peoples forges without having to pay as high a price sounds awesome. Although which of those you favor as an option depends on the type of adventure you are in. If you are in an adventure with no home town of any kind then a workshop is near useless and that crafthall access trait is the way to go. However if you are in a game focusing on staying in one place then the workshop is an equally and somewhat better option. If you are sorta playing a mix game where there is a home town but the party leaves on regular occaision and for extended periods of time then the two options are equally usefull and it may be worth it to take both.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 10:40AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2012
|
I think it wouldn't be out of line to say that some skills are "trained only" meaning you can't attempt without training. Nearly any craft skill would fall in this category in my opinion. Even if 5e doesn't allow for this rule wise you could add it really easily. I would if they don't provide for it. I'm not sure though from what's been said though that they aren't thinking my way anyway.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 11:00AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2011
|
Ouch, skills. It's a tough one, because to truly encapsulate real-world ability you either have to have a short list of generals that covers too broad a spectrum or an endless list that is too minute to be of practical use in game. The trick to is make the balancing act--sort of strike a middle ground.
The C&C model of abilities encapsulating skills is an elegant one, but favors the short list concept--too short for some. While I like it, it has it's weaknesses. I certainly don't favor the endless list variety however.
What I think frustrates most DMs who are somewhat anti-skills is that they can (and I emphasize CAN) take the place of roleplay or dialogue in game. So maybe have some GM advice in the core rules about how to effectively support roleplay when players use skills if you should so desire to do so. There's still nothing against just making a roll to see if a skill is used successfully. But some like most of this roleplayed out.
And I'm assuming the skills are a module--so incorporating a short list based on abilities as the core model makes perfect sense. C&C did it to great effect. And have layers of skill complexity, again tied to abilities, that can be added as DMs and their players desire.
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." --Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 11:07AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Aug 14, 2004
|
So, Traits allow you to do something not everyone can do (speak language), and Skills gives you a bonus at skill checks (climbing). I'm still not sure whether there will be skills that give you access to a task and, on top of that, gives you a bonus (juggling).
It seems that you can be trained in a skill more than once, thus increasing your bonus (+2 for the first training, +1 for every additional one). So, you can have less skills but be better at some of them. Maybe using traits and skills in combination can do. You can juggle (trait), and be especially good at it (skill training). This is an obvious homemade skill/trait, even if it doesn't appear in the rulebook as such. Since you're supposed to be able to customize freely, I'm not worried about it.
Since we don't know how often we get skills/traits, or the exact number of them in a background, we still don't know how rare a resource a skill or trait is, so I don't know the degree of min/maxing to expect. I hope, however, that high level specialized experts can achieve deeds nearly impossible for common people, but being just good at something (a high ability with at most a single skill training) can be good enough to compete with said experts while common people would be able to compete with the latter.
About skills being tied to abilities: Since they are aiming for an open skill list, you can create your own skills, so you can create a version of the skill that relies on a different ability. In this iteration of the game, though, it's so easy to make skills not tied to abilities that it would be a pity not parting them. Not diffcult to houserule, either, but having it in the PHB would be ideal.
The Workshop trait, on the other hand, I don't like. Characters with this trait can't benefit from it while travelling, as it's written. Also, there's the problem of it being an expensive asset (someone mentioned earlier that you can sell the workshop to buy a magic item). Either every character has access to a trait like that or it could have a heavy impact on the campaign echonomy. Having more starting money, for example, would be a fine trait, IMO, characterful for some concepts, if only the amount of riches the character has is well balanced.
Also, I'd like to play some characters with weaknesses a little like traits or skills. Like the dwarf that can't swim. I agree that often you wouldn't get anything in return (imagine this dwarf in Athas, having a trait or skill to balance it would be funny, to say something), but some times it could be balanced at the DM discretion (the same dwarf in a pirate campaign, or having a bonus trait/skill in exchange for a number of flaws). This would be advanced DMing, though, but it might be worth to be included in the DMG.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 11:23AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
Pretty much what I expected based on what they have mentioned so far. The article explains it pretty well, though his distinction between active and passive skills is off base. It is perfectly possible to run across things that can't be climbed or run into situations where knowledge skills are obviously applicable. The actual mechanics sound workable, it allows for a more flexible skill system then older editions without getting caught up in endless lists of skills. I'm a little worried that +2 might not be enough though, unless stats are way scaled down from 4e that doesn't seem like enough of a bonus. It sounds like that would also have the stat-skill synergy problem that hit 4e, where people only took skills that matched their stats because they couldn't ever become good in other skills no matter how much they trained. 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.
No solution there is going to work for every campaign setting. As long as the options are flexible enough that people are not forced into traits they will never get to use, I'm fine with it. Rather then a background listing exactly 4, they should list 5-6 and let you pick the four you want.
Question what happens if tasks overlap ?
This sort of system leads to a lot of partially overlapping skills/traits. For example, you might have the Charm skill he mentioned for a +2 to any attempt to befriend somebody. You might also have a Neverwinter Born trait that gives you +2 to all Charisma skills when dealing with other Neverwinter residents. Because of this, I'm guessing that only the biggest bonus applies, otherwise your going to spend a lot of time going through your abilities to find everything that might apply. Maybe something where you get a flat additional +1 if you have a second applicable skill/trait, but that is about it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 11:30AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I like the idea of skills and traits. Seems like an interesting way to handle things.
But I do hate the idea of ability score being a combination of raw talent and practiced training. I'd like to play a perceptive character without the wisdom of an elder monk of the mountain monastery.
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!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 11:35AM
#19
|
|
|
Sounds dubious to me. Still, D&D has survived poor skill systems in the past. Indeed, we may have never had a decent one. So we can likely suffer with this one too.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 11:46AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2012
|
Sounds dubious to me. Still, D&D has survived poor skill systems in the past. Indeed, we may have never had a decent one. So we can likely suffer with this one too.
I guess that sums it up. I remember breifly trying "RuneQuest," which did have many very detailed skills, including all your skill with weapons, broken down into attacking and parrying, which you advanced independently. D&D has, I take it, never come close to trying to do that.
Right now, skills seem perfectly adequate, though, so I'm not sure I understand the impetus to change them. Maybe its just because I haven't seen these "poor skill systems" in the past, but the current one seems to cover anything you might really need to do in the course of a typical adventure.
|
|
|
