Community

Endurance oughta be a skill. Try playing a rugby match without endurance training, it'll make more sense. not to disclude any other sport, but that's the toughest one I do.
Perception could be a feat bonus or something, but one can only get so much better at spotting things. A stackable feat would allow for a Sherlock Holmes character while someone who takes one or two has been through sniper training.
just my comments from the last page, not enough time to read all of it. 

Aug 26, 2012 -- 5:26PM, Akoo wrote:

Endurance oughta be a skill. Try playing a rugby match without endurance training, it'll make more sense. not to disclude any other sport, but that's the toughest one I do.
Perception could be a feat bonus or something, but one can only get so much better at spotting things. A stackable feat would allow for a Sherlock Holmes character while someone who takes one or two has been through sniper training.
just my comments from the last page, not enough time to read all of it. 

Endurance to me is more a reflection of general athleticism buthat understand your example and agree that endurance applies more to certain aspects more than others such as distance running vs sprinting.  
 

I think the great thing about modularity, is that you don't even really need to change bonuses for specializations or anything. Just decide how in depth you want to go in your game, just make sure the math works across the board.

For instance, currently the game has DCs designed for a skill bonus ranging from +0 to +12. So you can use just attributes for a harder game or use attributes with a simple adjustment like double their attribute bonus for a +0 to +10 range. Dirt simple, and doesn't involve any skills besides Str, Dex, Con... 

Want to get a little more in depth? Go ahead and give your characters say three or four broad skills with a +3-7 bonus similar to how 4E worked; Sailing, Commerce, Athletics, and Skullduggery or something like that. Want to get even more granular like 3E. Give PCs a set of 12 or so specific skills, Acrobatics, Climbing, Swimming, Navigation, Barter, Appraisal, Hide, Move Silently... again with a +3 to +7 bonus. Make sure they all balance numbers wise so players have a similar chance of succeeding at DCs, and your set to go.

If you want show PCs focus in a particular skill outside of this, I don't think getting to detailed with bonuses beyond this are the best way to go. Simple grant PCs advantage with certain kind of skill checks or something with a feat. That way they aren't necessarily way better at a skill than someone else, just much more reliable.

Aug 26, 2012 -- 4:38PM, Valdark wrote:

I feel you are missing the point on why this solution has merit.   

You again do not understand it is really fraking simple.   So I will say this one sentence to make it very very clear

Take the hardcoded limit of three specialities per category out of the proposal..  

It has no sense being there.  I have repeatedly said the solution is fine if it is not artificially constrained to some magic number three special skills per broad skill.   You have no justification for why it can't be four or five or two, you are just stuck on three for some OCD reason.  They do not have to be equal or three for the system to work.  It will work if one is two and the other is five.   The skill category has way more skills it applies to than just those that have been selected for bonus, including ones the players and DMs makeup.  To the person not using specialities he could care less how many are under the broad category, and the person using specialities could care less what the general categories are.  In both cases the system flattens to a list with no structure.

I do not have to try to prove to you that I might have a list of four skills or two skills or five skills to put under a category, because your motivation is surely everything can be boiled down to just three.  It is not about what my list is or is not, it is about the fundamental design of the system.    You cannot implement the system before you design it.

The system should be simply stated as broad skill categories with lists of specialized skills in which you have flexibility to spend your skillups in. There is no need to artifically limit what the system can allow specialization in.   If a player even has a good idea of specialities to add one onto his character sheet, maybe their way of influence is to smoke a pipe and get everyone high.   I like that idea so say sure you can specialize in that, though the rule is you need to have something to lite it with and something to smoke before you can roll your DC to see if the influence works.  A completely stupid example to show that the system needs to be extensible and modular.  

Your system says no I can't do that because you decided there must be a magic number of three.   

Anyone that thinks Endurance checks are just athletes needs to watch the show BUDS, it is about navy seals training in San Diego where the majority drop training specifically because they realize it is not about being an athlete at all.

Sure a dwarf has natural ability to stave off ill effects and push beyond their physical limits, so you could just say it takes a CON check there is no reason for it to be on the list.  But the show really does indicate that it just requires training to change the mind that you can tread in the freezing surf all day long and not catch hypothermia, that you can be underwater and hold your breath while tied to a rope.   That you can fight off disease taking hold.   Or my favorite improv idea listed in the manual, that you can quaff an entire stein of ale in one go.

 

If you remove a set amount of narrow skills under every broad skill category, you may enhance the modularity of adding "new" skills to the list in a homebrew sense but you utterly destroy the modularity that is present in the current system to allow for all three (Broad, Narrow, and Hybrid) systems to successfully and simply function in a balanced sense with each other with a uniformed set of rules.

By creating broad skills with 5 or 6 or 7 narrow skills under it...and another broad skill with only 2...you're also creating broad skills that are mechanically superior or inferior, which is problematic. It also completely screws up the balancing system as someone with +3 in a broad skill that has 6 narrow skills is going to be inherently stronger than someone who is working with that skill on the narrow system.

Completely against it.

Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:16AM, Zyph wrote:

If you remove a set amount of narrow skills under every broad skill category, you may enhance the modularity of adding "new" skills to the list in a homebrew sense but you utterly destroy the modularity that is present in the current system to allow for all three (Broad, Narrow, and Hybrid) systems to successfully and simply function in a balanced sense with each other with a uniformed set of rules.

By creating broad skills with 5 or 6 or 7 narrow skills under it...and another broad skill with only 2...you're also creating broad skills that are mechanically superior or inferior, which is problematic. It also completely screws up the balancing system as someone with +3 in a broad skill that has 6 narrow skills is going to be inherently stronger than someone who is working with that skill on the narrow system.

Completely against it.

Listed specialities are not a definition of the only things that can be done under a broad skill, rather they are just things that are listed as specialities that someone can take a bonus in. They just as well not be listed if they are not using the speciality bonus, because they are no different than an improv skill or a general skill.   They simply are just ability checks that have a categorized bonus.

The manual in fact lists improv opportunites for using skills, if you want to be OCD about numerical number of skills 'balance', then you are essentially saying nobody can improv their skills.   That is a lack of understanding of the skills system, and the misalignment of the direction of 5e asking DMs to encourage players roleplay.

The player with six specialities under a generic category is not numerically advantaged.  They get the same number of skillups as everyone else, they just had more choices to specialize in, which they either chose to focus on three of six mastered fully or do all six but none are fully mastered.  They can also choose to ignore their specialities and make up their on list of on the fly capabilities of what the category allows them to do.  The DM may agree or not to allow this extra list in as specialities for more bonus from training, or just agree to allow them in under the general category but not for speciality bonus, or may not agree with them being used at all.   The skill system in 5e is not telling you what you can or cannot do, rather it is purely there to enhance the ability checks with bonuses which are the root of what you can or cannot do.    Artificially say you only have 3 speciality under a category is holding onto the idea that skills limit what you can do, when they are supposed to only be bonusing abilities what you can do better.   Since the abilities are bonused using the same skillup opportunities it does not matter what a player spends those bonuses on (or not), as they had the same opportunities as everyone else to enhance their core abilities better.

example

STR is an ability that your fighter has to  break down doors, but he fails because of the metal reinforced door hardware.   There are other abilities that can be used to get thru a door in different ways, but you have ideas of how to use your INT to get thru the door, which can be suggested to the DM for your ability check.   You have a general Stealth category bonus and suggest to try picking the lock, and your DM agrees.   However it is a very hard lock thus is better accomplished with training in the Stealth/PickLock skill to get thru, which you have not taken so you take your chances but fail.  On your next round your category bonus of Engineer gives you an idea to tap the hinges and dismantle the door braces, though this is not a listed skill the DM agrees that falls into that category but disagrees that your speciality of DisableTraps under Engineer applies, nor did he agree that TapTheHinges is a skill which requires further training speciality bonus and did not allow it on your character sheet.   He rules that this will take you 5m so someone needs to keep watch while you work, and the others decide to take their short rest in the meantime.  You roll only your Engineer bonus to your ability and succeed in setting the door up by tapping its hinges so that the fighter can more easily break down the door with STR as now only the lock is holding it in place.  Your fighter is sore from the list fight and says I am not going to break down the door I am going to pick the lock!   The DM says OK how do you plan to do that since you are an INT 8 and have no category bonuses and certainly not trained in picking locks.  Fighter says I take my spear jam it in the door at the lock and wack it with my warhammer.    He rolls and very luckily crits and smugly looks over at the rogue as they all go thru the door.

So my system is flawed because it doesn't account for the use of mind altering substances on diplomacy checks?

I'm sorry but this is my concern with your answers. You say the system should be designed differently but rather than propose a system yourself you give odd examples like this about how my system can't handle it. You are wrong.

Mind altering substance: when you burn this substance it grants advantage on all diplomacy checks toward those who have inhaled the smoke.

You don't have to create a drug induced diplomacy skill. This is where our viewpoints differ. You seem to be under the impression that all variable should have separate skills and I can assure you that you are in a vast minority  there.

Aug 27, 2012 -- 6:09AM, yarnevk wrote:

Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:16AM, Zyph wrote:

If you remove a set amount of narrow skills under every broad skill category, you may enhance the modularity of adding "new" skills to the list in a homebrew sense but you utterly destroy the modularity that is present in the current system to allow for all three (Broad, Narrow, and Hybrid) systems to successfully and simply function in a balanced sense with each other with a uniformed set of rules.

By creating broad skills with 5 or 6 or 7 narrow skills under it...and another broad skill with only 2...you're also creating broad skills that are mechanically superior or inferior, which is problematic. It also completely screws up the balancing system as someone with +3 in a broad skill that has 6 narrow skills is going to be inherently stronger than someone who is working with that skill on the narrow system.

Completely against it.

Listed specialities are not a definition of the only things that can be done under a broad skill, rather they are just things that are listed as specialities that someone can take a bonus in. They just as well not be listed if they are not using the speciality bonus, because they are no different than an improv skill or a general skill.   They simply are just ability checks that have a categorized bonus.

The manual in fact lists improv opportunites for using skills, if you want to be OCD about numerical number of skills 'balance', then you are essentially saying nobody can improv their skills.   That is a lack of understanding of the skills system, and the misalignment of the direction of 5e asking DMs to encourage players roleplay.

The player with six specialities under a generic category is not numerically advantaged.  They get the same number of skillups as everyone else, they just had more choices to specialize in, which they either chose to focus on three of six mastered fully or do all six but none are fully mastered.  They can also choose to ignore their specialities and make up their on list of on the fly capabilities of what the category allows them to do.  The DM may agree or not to allow this extra list in as specialities for more bonus from training, or just agree to allow them in under the general category but not for speciality bonus, or may not agree with them being used at all.   The skill system in 5e is not telling you what you can or cannot do, rather it is purely there to enhance the ability checks with bonuses which are the root of what you can or cannot do.    Artificially say you only have 3 speciality under a category is holding onto the idea that skills limit what you can do, when they are supposed to only be bonusing abilities what you can do better.   Since the abilities are bonused using the same skillup opportunities it does not matter what a player spends those bonuses on (or not), as they had the same opportunities as everyone else to enhance their core abilities better.

example

STR is an ability that your fighter has to  break down doors, but he fails because of the metal reinforced door hardware.   There are other abilities that can be used to get thru a door in different ways, but you have ideas of how to use your INT to get thru the door, which can be suggested to the DM for your ability check.   You have a general Stealth category bonus and suggest to try picking the lock, and your DM agrees.   However it is a very hard lock thus is better accomplished with training in the Stealth/PickLock skill to get thru, which you have not taken so you take your chances but fail.  On your next round your category bonus of Engineer gives you an idea to tap the hinges and dismantle the door braces, though this is not a listed skill the DM agrees that falls into that category but disagrees that your speciality of DisableTraps under Engineer applies, nor did he agree that TapTheHinges is a skill which requires further training speciality bonus and did not allow it on your character sheet.   He rules that this will take you 5m so someone needs to keep watch while you work, and the others decide to take their short rest in the meantime.  You roll only your Engineer bonus to your ability and succeed in setting the door up by tapping its hinges so that the fighter can more easily break down the door with STR as now only the lock is holding it in place.  Your fighter is sore from the list fight and says I am not going to break down the door I am going to pick the lock!   The DM says OK how do you plan to do that since you are an INT 8 and have no category bonuses and certainly not trained in picking locks.  Fighter says I take my spear jam it in the door at the lock and wack it with my warhammer.    He rolls and very luckily crits and smugly looks over at the rogue as they all go thru the door.

A couple of things here are off to me. 

How does opening locks in any way fall under stealth?

Second, why on earth would Tapping The Hinges require its own skill?  You tap the hinges out if they are on your side 0 skill required no roll necessary. If they are on te far side and you have the right tools then roll a check.  Trained in engineering broad group? Add this.  Trained in disable device narrow skill?  Add that.  

Third,  the fighter wants to break the lock?  Using his spear?  How is this a skill?  Apply damage to the lock until it breaks. In a hurry?  Well perhaps your engineer can apply his bonus to the damage because he can help the fighter place the spear at just the right angle.

My proposed system handles this same scenario just as easily.   

Looking at a proposal by wrecan I realized that perhaps I should also include an option for the ability only model. 

This almost fits in the current model of broad groups without modification. 

Any suggestions on how this model might work alongside the current proposal I have made?

Aug 27, 2012 -- 2:35PM, Valdark wrote:

Looking at a proposal by wrecan

Linky for those who are interested.

Yes thank you wrecan.

Aug 26, 2012 -- 4:45PM, Valdark wrote:

Aug 26, 2012 -- 3:44PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

I like the idea of breaking out sub-skills or specialities instead of adding new skills.  As long as a character with one of the 'full' skills effectively has all the specialities you avoid the problem of skill-proliferation and 'creating incompetence.'  That is, unless the specialty bonuses get too big.  If, for instance, you can put 3 points into specialty skills, you shouldn't be able to put 2 in the same one.  

As it is, the +1/3 levels in one skill lets a specialist (in the sense of trained) pull pretty far ahead of a poor character.  The swing between a high an low stat is likely to be 5 or so, training makes 3 more, and 6th level with both points spent on the same skill makes a 10 point difference.  Sure, it's not as extreme as it was in 3e, but it's still the same sort of problem.  There's a simple solution, of course:  just have level improve checks across the board, limiting the swing to stat and training.  With stats no longer going up and training being only +3, that's starting to get everyone into the same ballpark.

So your concern is any points beyond initial training.  I think that is a separate concern and is easily handled by not allowing the max +7 training.   This could fit in nearly any system of skills by just saying don't level individual skills just take 1/2 level to all skills and ignore the +1 to specific/broad skills. 

Something like that, yes.  I don't mind the possibility of defining narrower specialists with sub-skills or a focus within a skill, nor do I mind too much the idea of a focused build getting a bit better better with a given skill or sub-skill. 

I guess my concern is more with keeping level meaningful.  A high-level character has done a lot of adventuring.  Even if he remains untrained in finding traps or understanding arcane glyphs, say, he should have more of a chance of spotting and avoiding either, because he's made his share of 'rookie mistakes' in the past...

Thank you tony. 

I will work on adding that option to the main page since it is a separate but relevant modular choice that should be available.

Someone asked if I had a full list of skills.  Here is what I have in my core books.

4e
Acrobatics
Arcana
Athletics
Bluff
Diplomacy
Dungeoneering
Endurance
Heal
History
Insight
Intimidate
Nature
Perception
Religion
Stealth
Streetwise
Thievery

3.5
Appraise
Balance
Bluff
Climb
Concentration
Craft
Decipher script
Diplomacy
Disable Device
Disguise
Escape Artist
Forgery
Gather info
Handle animal
Heal
Hide
Intimidate
Jump
Knowledge:arcana, architecture, dungeoneering, geography, history, local, nature, nobility, religion, the planes
Listen
Move silently
Open lock
Perform
Profession
Ride
Search
Sense motive
Sleight of hand
Speak language
Spellcraft
Spot
Survival
Swim
Tumble
Use magic device
Use rope

2e secondary skills

Armorer
Bowyer/fletcher
Farmer
Fisher
Forester
Gambler
Groom
Hunter
Jeweler
Leather worker
Limner/painter
Mason
Miner
Navigator
Sailor
Scribe
Shipwright
Tailor/weaver
Teamster/freighter
Trader/barterer
Trapper/furrier
Weapon smith
Woodworker/carpenter
No skill of measurable worth

2e non weapon proficiencies (skills and powers expanded list)

Agriculture
Animal handling
Animal training
Blacksmithing
Boat piloting
Brewing
Carpentry
Cobbling
Cooking
Dancing
Deep diving
Engineering
Etiquette
Fire-building
Fishing
Gaming
Heraldry
Leather working
Mining
Modern languages
Musical instrument
Navigation
Orienteering
Painting
Pottery
Riding, airborne
Riding, land
Rope use
Sculpting
Singing
Seamanship
Stone masonry
Swimming
Tailoring
Weather knowledge
Weaving

Ancient history
Ancient languages
Astrology
Healing
Herbalism
Local history
Reading/writing
Religion
Spellcraft

Appraising
Blind-fighting
Cryptography
Disguise
Forgery
Gem cutting
Juggling
Jumping
Reading lips
Set snares
Tightrope walking
Throwing
Tumbling
Ventriloquism

Animal lore
Armorer
Bowyer/fletcher
Charioteering
Gaming
Endurance
Hunting
Mountaineering
Running
Survival
Tracking
Weapon smithing
Astronomy

Aug 27, 2012 -- 9:37AM, Valdark wrote:

So my system is flawed because it doesn't account for the use of mind altering substances on diplomacy checks?

Yet another response where you did not respond to my specific issue with the proposal, instead you attacked my intentionally stupid examples.

I have proposed a system, and it does not require changing any lists other than allowing others to provide expanded input.   This is why I have not bothered to provide a revised list because I am not going to go to the effort to add four things to the list when you will find any reason to say it is obvious it needs to be three because that fourth thing was stupid.  Rather than focusing on the change to the system, you keep focusing on the list.   It is not about the list, it is about the system design.

The proposed change to your system is simply to remove the word three for your proposal.  

I am not providing feedback on the list, I am providing feedback on the design of the system.  So stop telling me to come up with a revised list.  Stop asking for stupid examples and finding any reason to diss on them.  

Removing the word three does not change the balance of your proposal at all.   The balance in the system solely comes from limiting the skillups opportunities. Someone using a category bonus is not being bonused on the 3 or 6 skills in that category;  the reason is they are not trained in those skills, they just have the background to possibly be trained in those skills. Those speciality skills they are not trained in are not any different than any other skilled use of their background they might make up. They are not prohibited from using those skills, they just lack the training bonus. Someone trained in 3/5 speciality skills in a category is not lacking compared to someone that has 3/3 trained speciality skills in their catagory, they just had more choices within their background category they could make.

This is the point you need to address, specifically how is the removal of references to 3 going to destroy the balance, beyond being OCD about 3.  They only response you have made to that it gives someone more skills and thus more powerful, which is simply not true - they have the same constraint of limited skillup opportunites, they have the same power.   If you wish to have a rational discussion about this then you need to specifically discuss the bolded point above.   I am not interested in discussing what is or is not on the list.
 

Aug 28, 2012 -- 5:56AM, yarnevk wrote:

Aug 27, 2012 -- 9:37AM, Valdark wrote:

So my system is flawed because it doesn't account for the use of mind altering substances on diplomacy checks?

I have proposed a system, and it does not require changing any lists other than allowing others to provide expanded input.   This is why I have not bothered to provide a revised list because I am not going to go to the effort to add four things to the list when you will find any reason to say it is obvious it needs to be three because that fourth thing was stupid.  Rather than focusing on the change to the system, you keep focusing on the list.   It is not about the list, it is about the system design.

The proposed change to your system is simply to remove the word three for your proposal.  

I am not providing feedback on the list, I am providing feedback on the design of the system.  So stop telling me to come up with a revised list.  Stop asking for stupid examples and finding any reason to diss on them.  

Removing the word three does not change the balance of your proposal at all.   The balance in the system solely comes from limiting the skillups opportunities. Someone using a category bonus is not being bonused on the 3 or 6 skills in that category;  the reason is they are not trained in those skills, they just have the background to possibly be trained in those skills. Those speciality skills they are not trained in are not any different than any other skilled use of their background they might make up. They are not prohibited from using those skills, they just lack the training bonus. Someone trained in 3/5 speciality skills in a category is not lacking compared to someone that has 3/3 trained speciality skills in their catagory, they just had more choices within their background category they could make.

This is the point you need to address, specifically how is the removal of references to 3 going to destroy the balance, beyond being OCD about 3.

So what you are proposing is making the broad skill choice no longer encompass everything within it when choosing at the broad skill level?

If this is indeed your meaning then my concern is why have the broad groups at all?


Examples are relevant.

I'm not asking for them in order to tear them down or to prove my systems reasoning but to genuinely understand your meaning.

Somewhere along the line we have a disconnect in our understanding of each other and I ask for examples so that I can understand you better and perhaps help you better understand my reasoning.  

Aug 28, 2012 -- 6:07AM, Valdark wrote:

So what you are proposing is making the broad skill choice no longer encompass everything within it when choosing at the broad skill level?

To be fair, I don't think your Subskills do encompass the entirety of the Skills from which they are subdivided.

If this is indeed your meaning then my concern is why have the broad groups at all?

To allow people who want more granularity in Skills to have more granularity in Skills.

For example, you have divided Athletics into run, swim, and climb.  What if I want to use Strength to lift a heavy gate?  That is clearly part of Strength, but none of your Subskills encompass it.  (In 3e and 4e, this would be Athletics.)  It's also a classic use of Strength from back when First Edition had an entry under Strength for "Bend Bars/Lift Gates".

That's one reason why I think trying to come up with three Subskills that neatly divides each Skill evenly is unlikely to work. 

Another issue is that if the Subabilities are not equally valuable, you've created unbalancing trap options.  If you are in a desert-based campaign, Swim is a useless Subskill.  The person who chooses subskills and takes Run and Jump, but not Swim, is better off than the person who uses Skills and takes Athletics.  It creates unusual Skill arbitrage.

The broad categories are intended to mean those broad skills that your background brings you.   They are not things that you speficially trained for to benefit your adventuring.   And it is the carrot that gets 4e liking the system, because they understand that the broad categories are indeed a bit gamist in that they where created so that each class gets the skill bonuses they need using only a few skills without getting trapped lacking something.   Whereas speciality skills are those things you focused on while you are out adventuring that make you better at specific things and those you can acquire more of because it reflects your XP, you start to specialize in areas of your background.  It comes with the opportunity cost of not being able to specialize in everything, be at across branches or within branches.

Aug 28, 2012 -- 6:33AM, wrecan wrote:

Aug 28, 2012 -- 6:07AM, Valdark wrote:

So what you are proposing is making the broad skill choice no longer encompass everything within it when choosing at the broad skill level?

To be fair, I don't think your Subskills do encompass the entirety of the Skills from which they are subdivided.

If this is indeed your meaning then my concern is why have the broad groups at all?

To allow people who want more granularity in Skills to have more granularity in Skills.

For example, you have divided Athletics into run, swim, and climb.  What if I want to use Strength to lift a heavy gate?  That is clearly part of Strength, but none of your Subskills encompass it.  (In 3e and 4e, this would be Athletics.)  It's also a classic use of Strength from back when First Edition had an entry under Strength for "Bend Bars/Lift Gates".

That's one reason why I think trying to come up with three Subskills that neatly divides each Skill evenly is unlikely to work. 

Another issue is that if the Subabilities are not equally valuable, you've created unbalancing trap options.  If you are in a desert-based campaign, Swim is a useless Subskill.  The person who chooses subskills and takes Run and Jump, but not Swim, is better off than the person who uses Skills and takes Athletics.  It creates unusual Skill arbitrage.

Thank you wrecan. 

This is exactly the kind of feedback I was asking for.

So how do we avoid those traps while at the same time allowing the narrow skill choices to be as valuable as the broad while also preventing the reverse scenario of making narrow skill options the trap?

What subsets would you provide that aren't already covered?  

Do we then scrap the possibility of playing both types at the same table?

I know your latest blog coversa some of this but I would love to discuss it here in more detail.

Aug 28, 2012 -- 6:40AM, yarnevk wrote:

speciality skills are those things you focused on while you are out adventuring that make you better at specific things and those you can acquire more of because it reflects your XP, you start to specialize in areas of your background.

I understand that.  But if this is the point of the subskills, then there's no need to limit it to three per skill.  Why not have the subskills of Athletics be Run, Jump, Swim, and Press (including lifting gates, pushing boulders, bending bars, etc.)?

Aug 28, 2012 -- 6:40AM, yarnevk wrote:

The broad categories are intended to mean those broad skills that your background brings you.   They are not things that you speficially trained for to benefit your adventuring.   And it is the carrot that gets 4e liking the system, because they understand that the broad categories are indeed a bit gamist in that they where created so that each class gets the skill bonuses they need using only a few skills without getting trapped lacking something.   Whereas speciality skills are those things you focused on while you are out adventuring that make you better at specific things and those you can acquire more of because it reflects your XP, you start to specialize in areas of your background.  It comes with the opportunity cost of not being able to specialize in everything, be at across branches or within branches.

Alright now I am seeing a pattern here that is giving me a better understanding of the type of system you are proposing.

The reason I asked for mechanical examples is that I wanted clarification.


So let me try an example of your proposal.  

Your background grants you stealth as a broad skill.   This broad skill never improves after character creation.

So your sheet reads:
Stealth +3.

You then gain a level that allows you a +1 skill specialty

You choose Sleight of Hand

So now your sheet reads:
Stealth +3
        Sleight of hand +4


Is this how you see this system working?

Or are we still misunderstanding eachother?  

Aug 28, 2012 -- 6:43AM, wrecan wrote:

Aug 28, 2012 -- 6:40AM, yarnevk wrote:

speciality skills are those things you focused on while you are out adventuring that make you better at specific things and those you can acquire more of because it reflects your XP, you start to specialize in areas of your background.

I understand that.  But if this is the point of the subskills, then there's no need to limit it to three per skill.  Why not have the subskills of Athletics be Run, Jump, Swim, and Press (including lifting gates, pushing boulders, bending bars, etc.)?

I think this is the point he has been trying to make but with the wording used we have been misunderstanding each other.  

Talking past each other if you will.

Hopefully we are on the same page now. 

Aug 27, 2012 -- 9:06PM, Valdark wrote:

Someone asked if I had a full list of skills. Here is what I have in my core books...

Thanks! That's quite a list!

Here are the current skills in D&D Next's playtest packet 2. Use them or not, I just compiled them for my own benefit and figured someone else may get use out of it so I posted it here. I love the direction skills and backgrounds are moving in D&D Next, and I can't wait until it's more fleshed out. As it stands today, no skills exist based on Strength or Consitution but that's probably going to change.

Insight	Wisdom
Spot	Wisdom
Survival	Wisdom
Open Locks	Dexterity
Sleight of Hand	Dexterity
Stealth	Dexterity
Animal Handling	Charisma
Bluff	Charisma
Diplomacy	Charisma
Intimidate	Charisma
Streetwise	Charisma
Find and Remove Traps	Intelligence
Forbidden Lore	Intelligence
Geographical Lore	Intelligence
Heraldic Lore	Intelligence
Historical Lore	Intelligence
Local Lore	Intelligence
Magical Lore	Intelligence
Natural Lore	Intelligence
Planar Lore	Intelligence
Professional Lore	Intelligence
Religious Lore	Intelligence
Societal Lore	Intelligence
Underdark Lore	Intelligence
Undead Lore	Intelligence

Aug 27, 2012 -- 9:37AM, Valdark wrote:

So my system is flawed because it doesn't account for the use of mind altering substances on diplomacy checks?

The spice must flow!

Aug 28, 2012 -- 11:27AM, Ogiwan wrote:

Aug 27, 2012 -- 9:37AM, Valdark wrote:

So my system is flawed because it doesn't account for the use of mind altering substances on diplomacy checks?

The spice must flow!

You just gave me amazing idea for a new flavor for the fey warlock.  

Aug 28, 2012 -- 11:31AM, Valdark wrote:

Aug 28, 2012 -- 11:27AM, Ogiwan wrote:

Aug 27, 2012 -- 9:37AM, Valdark wrote:

So my system is flawed because it doesn't account for the use of mind altering substances on diplomacy checks?

The spice must flow!

You just gave me amazing idea for a new flavor for the fey warlock.  

...is it cinnamon-flavored?

Aug 28, 2012 -- 1:38PM, Ogiwan wrote:

Aug 28, 2012 -- 11:31AM, Valdark wrote:

Aug 28, 2012 -- 11:27AM, Ogiwan wrote:

Aug 27, 2012 -- 9:37AM, Valdark wrote:

So my system is flawed because it doesn't account for the use of mind altering substances on diplomacy checks?

The spice must flow!

You just gave me amazing idea for a new flavor for the fey warlock.  

...is it cinnamon-flavored?

We are way off topic....but I can't resist.

Instead of convening with fey to regain favors you injest spice.  Your eyes glow blue with your first favor.  

All the influence abilities work as the bene jeserit training.  

I'd have to go over the lock abilities again to expand the concept but I could see mua'dib being a lock.  

Aug 28, 2012 -- 6:51AM, Valdark wrote:

Stealth +3
        Sleight of hand +4

ability+background+speciality is your skill bonus formula.  ability is your modifier, background are those general skill categories listed on your background, speciality is your trained theme skills, for both of those any adhoc creative use of those background or speciality that the DM thinks fit that flavor should be rewarded the bonus to the check.   A good idea to write these down as you go.   Adding new background and new speciality can be completely modular because that is the place where the check rule is defined.   If my background is shaman and I declare a speciality skill is the peace pipe from my leader of the tribe speciality, as long as the DM approves it then it is OK.   Official rules just declare what background and speciality are official rules, and those can be updated at any time in any article.

There is not centralized list other than what core backgrounds and speciality skills are listed.

race/class no longer give skill bonuses they just give ability bonus

background or speciality can be bonused at lvl0 and lvlup as you see fit using your bonus allocation.   +1 in sleight of hand, +3 in Stealth means any use of Stealth background other than Sleight of Hand is a +3,    +1 in Slight of Hand and +3 in Stealth mean your get ability+3+1 if the DM approves that what you are doing is considered a slight of the hand.   If Sleight of Hand is not a speciality skill or Stealth is not a background skills you can still attempt Sleight of Hand, you are just lacking any bonus and trying to get by on ability.

What the lvl0 and lvlup progression depends on how the designers balance the game.     If monsters also use stealth yet players lvl up then monsters/DC also need to level up, but they have said they are not doing lvled monsters/DC.  If monsters/DC are leveled then it does not matter what the exact lvlup budget is, it just needs to be balanced for the usual 2/3 odds at easy (no skills no ability) medium (skills or ability), hard (skills and ability) at every level.

Not sure if they want people taking more backgrounds and more speciality during the game, I think every 5 levels for expanding what you can do rather than bonusing what you started with is fine, allowing that is important if they ever implement leveled multiclassing so you can adhoc your char rather than planning it out.    I think they need rules for allowing multiple background and multiple speciality, maybe split the skillups across each but you have the same budget as everyone else.

I like the work so far. I know you are looking for feedback and what others would use with such a list, so here goes.

I would have all the individual skills listed and let them choose, rather than having groups. However, I would also let them buy three skills in a group for the cost of two if they wish and see how it works out. At least, this is how I think I would use a list such as this at this point in time.

I also am pulling out my 1st ed and 2nd ed books to take a closer look at the non-weapon proficiencies. It's been so long since I've viewed them that I am not even sure how I would use that. Perhaps I would throw some NWP into some background traits, or give them X number of NWP. Or add some NWP into skills, such as direction sense noted as an ability you can do with training in navigation.

In fact, let me break out my pre-3e books and see what I think. Keep up the good work. 

The concern I see with your proposal is that it makes everyone use both broad and narrow skills.

The player with broad skill preference will be forced to focus or fall behind.

The player with narrow focus preference will be forced to take a broad group before he can specialize.

Likewise I'm not sure why you want to tie in this peace pipe concept as a skill option rather than a specialized equipment option.

Perhaps it is my bias toward specialized equipment being usable by just about anyone regardless of training but I have trouble with this particular direction of your proposal more than the rest.

I appreciate you sharing and for helping me better understand your concept but I fear that we must agree to disagree here.

It's just something I would adapt for my games and see if it works for my players. If it doesn't, I'd change it until it does.

Aug 28, 2012 -- 6:02PM, Valdark wrote:

The concern I see with your proposal is that it makes everyone use both broad and narrow skills. The player with broad skill preference will be forced to focus or fall behind. The player with narrow focus preference will be forced to take a broad group before he can specialize.

And someone who thinks skills are stupid and everything should be ability checks is not going to get any bonus at all.  

Other than that, everybody has the same number of points to spend (unless the rogue is getting more from a feat).    Opportunity cost is the same.    

Spend all your points on broad skill categories you can do more things well you are a jack of all trades.

Spend all your points only specialized skills you can do just those things well you are a specialist but not a jack of all trades.

Spend your points on both specialized skills and broad skills then you can do a lot less than anyone else, but the few things you can do you do really well.

All three ways have opportunity costs of deciding are you a generalist or a specialist or somewhere in between.


If you want to be the best Sleight of Hand and that is all you ever want to do, then certainly all your skill points go to only that skill and you do not even put points in your background skills if that is what you want to do.

Aug 28, 2012 -- 6:21PM, yarnevk wrote:

Aug 28, 2012 -- 6:02PM, Valdark wrote:

The concern I see with your proposal is that it makes everyone use both broad and narrow skills. The player with broad skill preference will be forced to focus or fall behind. The player with narrow focus preference will be forced to take a broad group before he can specialize.

And someone who thinks skills are stupid and everything should be ability checks is not going to get any bonus at all.  

Other than that, everybody has the same number of points to spend (unless the rogue is getting more from a feat).    Opportunity cost is the same.    

Spend all your points on broad skill categories you can do more things well you are a jack of all trades.

Spend all your points only specialized skills you can do just those things well you are a specialist but not a jack of all trades.

Spend your points on both specialized skills and broad skills then you can do a lot less than anyone else, but the few things you can do you do really well.

All three ways have opportunity costs of deciding are you a generalist or a specialist or somewhere in between.


If you want to be the best Sleight of Hand and that is all you ever want to do, then certainly all your skill points go to only that skill and you do not even put points in your background skills if that is what you want to do.

As far as the ability check crowd I will most likely be incorporating a version of wrecan's proposal into my own to cover this. 

On the rest you have lost me again.  

Your last few posts seemed to indicate that you were proposing backgrounds grant broad skill categories and that from there you could only specialize.  

Now I'm not so sure we were on the same page.  

I really am trying to comprehend your full proposal here but each post seems to give a different take except for the fact that you don't believe in evenly divided broad groups.  

I have added all the NWP I can find from AD&D 1st ed. I have OD&D, but I am pretty sure it's not in any of those boxed sets. I believe it started with Oriental Adventures, and was only in The Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and the Wilderness Survival Guide other than OA in 1e. OA is different than the other two books, but all books share the fact you can spend additional NWP slots on the same proficiency to get a bonus of 2 points to your rolls.


Oriental Adventures - This was the introduction to NWP. These would have a base number you would hit but the die roll was not changed by attributes. You could buy the same NWP with multiple slots and lower that target number, however.

Artisan

Armorer
Blacksmith
Bowyer
Brewer
Carpenter
Civil engineer
Herbalist
Jeweler
Masseur
Navigator
Paper-maker
Potter
Seamstress/tailor
Silk maker
Stonemason
Tanner/Leatherworker
Weaponsmith
Weaver

Barbarian

Chanting
Fire building
Running
Signaling
Snare building
Sound imitation
Survival
Tracking

Common

Agriculture
Animal handling
Cooking
Dance
Fishing
Gaming
Horsemanship
Hunting
Husbandry
Iaijutsu
Juggling
Music
Reading/writing
Sailing craft
Singing
Small water craft
Swimming

Court

Calligraphy
Etiquette
Falconry
Flower arranging
Heraldry
Landscape gardening
Noh
Origami
Painting
Poetry

Dungeoneer's Survival Guide - This book allows most NWP's rolls to be modifed by an ability score. However, some NWP do not require rolls and are labeled as NA. You can spend multiple slots in the same proficiency and get easier target numbers to hit.

Craftsman Proficiencies

Animal Trainer Wis
Armorer Int
Blacksmith Str
Boatwright Int
Bowyer/Fletcher Dex
Carpenter Str
Gem Cutter Dex
Leatherworker Int
Miner Wis
Potter Dex
Smelter Int
Stonemason Str
Weaponsmith Int
Weaver Int

Adventuring Proficiencies

Animal Noise Wis
Blind-fighting NA
Boating Wis
Direction Sense Wis
Endurance NA
Fire-building Wis
Fishing Wis
Fungus Identification Int
Healing Wis
Mountaineering NA
Riding Wis
Rope Use Dex
Slow Respiration NA
Sound Analysis Wis
Swimming Str

Wilderness Survival Guide - This was just like the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide.

Alertness Wis
Animal Handling Wis
Animal Lore Int
Blind-fighting NA
Boating Wis
Charioteering Dex
Direction Sense Wis
Endurance NA
Fire-building Wis
Fishing Wis
Foraging Int
Healing Wis
Hunting Wis
Mountaineering NA
Plant Lore Int
Riding, airborne Wis
Riding, land-based Wis
Rope Use Dex
Running Con
Survival, cold NA
Survival, desert NA
Survival, heat NA
Swimming Str
Tracking NA
Weather Sense Wis



Unfortunately, the table didn't copy over spacing like it normally does and I do not have time to clean this up. However, tomorrow I will get that done.

 

Thanks for the info TheLyons. 

I haven't seen most of those books in over 20 years.

I'm glad I could add to this. There were some very interesting NWPs I had forgotten about such as Fungus Identification. The NWP of Sound Analysis lets you determine distances of things by tapping on cave walls and such. There are a lot of these that could be added to Next's artisan and commoner backgrounds as well. Masseur would make for one of those, as well as landscape gardener. My absolute favorite on the list is civil engineer. In fact, I am going to have to create a civil engineer for my next game. Love it!

Anyways, do what you will with this. I am just glad I could add something.

Some of those definitely add character and others definitely fit within some of the skill groups. 

The more informed a decision is the better. 

Thank you.

Aug 28, 2012 -- 6:36PM, Valdark wrote:

Now I'm not so sure we were on the same page.  

I simply restated your OP in my own words with the restriction of three subskills per category removed.  

The way I stated it the 4e player plays as he is used to by using bonused skill categories, the 3e player plays as he is used to by using bonused skill speciality, and the 3e/4e player that says the merits of both systems takes advantage of both.

I personally would not allow training and backgrounds to be leveled, that is fixed at start of the game and use stacked advantage die instead with the DC tables adjusted to account for that stacked advantage die being +5 background (4e training) with a +3 speciality (4e focus).   But since you already dissed on that idea I am only focusing why you insist on being OCD about leaving in the fixed three.    4e did not have leveled skills it had leveled abilities, people only think it had leveled skills because the math was precalc on the char sheet, but it was an (ability+lvl/2)+training bonus.  The only way to actually level skills was the use of feats, which had opportunity costs of not using the feat for something else.

You can't balance the game for both those who choose not to avail themselves of bonuses on principle simultaneously with those who min-maxed their character bonuses, be they weapons feats or skill training or whatever.   You have to consider bonuses as having an opportunity cost of making choices in selecting between them or even not using them at all.  The devs can either tilt the balance easy mode if you use bonuses making them optional or hard mode if you do not use bonuses that are required to keep up.   They could just compensate for bonuses for things by just flat out giving bonuses and that would allow the game to be balanced, this is done in Dark Sun which does that to compensate for little magic items.   But for those principled against having bonuses that really is not a solution to be giving them bonuses outright.

I see.

I'm trying to understand your decisions. 

I was attempting to discuss the pros and cons of your proposed idea as a whole but with you changing it around without making it clear what you were doing it is definitely more difficult to carry on a meaningful conversation. 

The interesting thing to me is that the 4e solution actually grants a higher bonus prior to leveling than the 5e method.

4e training +5/focus+3=8

5e training +3 with max bonus +7

so really there is more disparity between those in 4e who maxed out than in the 5e system and still further disparity between those who just trained and those who did not. 

4e trained 5
5e trained 3
Difference +2 disparity for 4e

4e trained+focused 8
5e maxed 7
Disparity +1 4e

Add to this that 4e had no cap on ability scores and you see the gap widen even further.

5e has gone even further than 4e in easing the disparity between the trained and the untrained. 

The only difference is that currently the skills are not completely defined.

You complain about the artificial nature of the 3 narrow per broad concept but it is one of the few ways that you can keep the gap between broad skill training and narrow skill training from widening in one direction or the other. 

I want both types of players to be able to play at the same table with little to know additional work. 

Methods that leave these uneven mean having only one or the other at the table with no way to reconcile them.

Aug 29, 2012 -- 7:39AM, Valdark wrote:

You complain about the artificial nature of the 3 narrow per broad concept but it is one of the few ways that you can keep the gap between broad skill training and narrow skill training from widening in one direction or the other.

Well, i think that's the rub.  The benefit you identify is that it makes it easy to balance between broad and narrow skill training.  The cost is leaving a lot of stuff out (such as the Press specialty to Atheltics that I proposed).  The issue then is whether the benefit outweighs the cost, and whether part of that cost is having a system that seems incomplete.

Aug 29, 2012 -- 7:52AM, wrecan wrote:

Aug 29, 2012 -- 7:39AM, Valdark wrote:

You complain about the artificial nature of the 3 narrow per broad concept but it is one of the few ways that you can keep the gap between broad skill training and narrow skill training from widening in one direction or the other.

Well, i think that's the rub.  The benefit you identify is that it makes it easy to balance between broad and narrow skill training.  The cost is leaving a lot of stuff out (such as the Press specialty to Atheltics that I proposed).  The issue then is whether the benefit outweighs the cost, and whether part of that cost is having a system that seems incomplete.

Ah but does it have to?

Could we perhaps look at 4 per group or 5 per group as the magic number instead?

As soon as I get a bit more spare time I will be compiling those lists from Basic through 4e and seeing where they overlap.  Looking at some of the other proposed skills such as your Press and compiling another option for the system.  

Again I have not said that anything I proposed is a final product just that it seems to be a goo direction for compromise.  

I think the issue Valdark is simply that not all skill groups are created equal. What has been proposed is essentially the Shadowrun skill system. Not all skill groups have the same number of skills, and I agree that is a problem (but effectively unavoidable). It's like using a d12 to simulate lower sized dice. It works well for d2, d3, d4, and d6, but d8 and d10 just can't work properly. It's not the fault of the d12, it's just the way things work.

I don't think we should have a situation where one skill group has 5-6 subskills and another has 2. But if there is a variance between 3-4 subskills, I don't feel that it will be excessively imbalanced.

That is a valid point Mithrus.  I'm more in favor of an equal division but perhaps a 1 point variance would work.

Ultimately this isn't our decision but the Devs and it's good for us to all put our views and reasoning on the table. 

Yarnevk and I don't necessarily agree but I know that us expressing why we have these different opinions and preferences can only help the developers in understanding both our preferences and our reasoning.

Whatever the end product is I hope it surprises and pleases both of us.

I'm away from my books at the moment can someone tell me where disguise falls in the 4e model?

Is it under thievery or bluff?

Aug 29, 2012 -- 1:51PM, Valdark wrote:

I'm away from my books at the moment can someone tell me where disguise falls in the 4e model? Is it under thievery or bluff?

Bluff.

Thanks Mithrus that was my gut instinct. 

Compiling a list of how all of the 2 and 3e skills fall in the 4e model.

Is it the same for forgery?

Aug 29, 2012 -- 1:55PM, Valdark wrote:

Is it the same for forgery?

Not 100% sure on that, but I would put that in thievery.

I will check tonight when I get home. 

Thanks again.

Ok one more, how did animal handling, riding and tracking fall in the 4e set?

Aug 29, 2012 -- 2:23PM, Valdark wrote:

Ok one more, how did animal handling, riding and tracking fall in the 4e set?

The first two (I think) were absorbed by the Nature skill, the last was Perception.

Thank you sir. 

Didn't think tracking fell there but it makes it's own kind of sense.

So I did my best to put the 2-3e skills/NWP into 4e categories.   

Check my list for errors.


4e
Acrobatics-3ebalance/jump/tumble-2ejumping/tightrope walking/tumbling

Arcana-3e knowledge arcana/knowledge planes/spellcraft/use magic device?-2e spellcraft

Athletics-3e climb/swim-2e mountaineering/Swimming/running

Bluff-3e Bluff/disguise-2e disguise

Diplomacy-3e diplomacy-2e Etiquette 

Dungeoneering-3e knowledge dungeoneering-2e NA

Endurance-3e NA-2e deep diving/endurance 

Heal-3e heal-2e Healing

History-3e knowledge history- 2e ancient history/local history

Insight-3e sense motive/2e NA

Intimidate-3e intimidate/2e 

Nature-3e Handle animal/knowledge nature/ride/survival-2e fisher/forester/animal handling/animal training/hunter/trapper/furrier/fire building/fishing/orienteering/herbalism/weather knowledge/animal lore/riding;land/riding;airborn/hunting/survival

Perception- 3e listen/search/spot-2e Tracking

Religion -3e knowledge religion-2e religion

Stealth- 3e move silently/hide 2e NA

Streetwise- gather info/knowledge local

Thievery-3e disable device/forgery/open lock/sleight of hand- 2e forgery


The below have no 4e equivalent.
(note) I may have missed some so correct me where I am wrong
3.5
Appraise
Concentration
Craft
Decipher script
Escape Artist
Knowledge:architecture, geography,   nobility
Perform
Profession
Speak language
Use magic device
Use rope

2e secondary skills

Armorer
Bowyer/fletcher
Farmer
Gambler
Groom
Jeweler
Leather worker
Limner/painter
Mason
Miner
Navigator
Sailor
Scribe
Shipwright
Tailor/weaver
Teamster/freighter
Trader/barterer
Weapon smith
Woodworker/carpenter
No skill of measurable worth

2e non weapon proficiencies (skills and powers expanded list)

Agriculture
Blacksmithing
Boat piloting
Brewing
Carpentry
Cobbling
Cooking 
Dancing
Engineering
Gaming
Heraldry
Leather working
Mining
Modern languages
Musical instrument 
Navigation
Painting
Pottery
Rope use
Sculpting
Singing
Seamanship
Stone masonry 
Tailoring
Weaving

Ancient languages
Astrology
Reading/writing

Appraising 
Blind-fighting
Cryptography
Gem cutting
Juggling
Reading lips
Set snares
Throwing 
Ventriloquism


Armorer
Bowyer/fletcher 
Charioteering
Gaming 
Weapon smithing
Astronomy

The list above shows that 4e lacked mainly professions and crafts from the previous versions.

It also reveals that 2e placed far more importance on nature based skills as part of adventuring as well as leaving all social interactions and perception completely to the DM and players.

Hopefully it will also illustrate my reasoning in placing all of the social interactions into one broad skill as well as why I chose to divide plant and animal based nature skills.

3.5 = 4e Skills
Appraise = 4e Streetwise
Concentration = 4e Endurance
Decipher script = 4e Insight
Escape Artist = 4e Acrobatics or Athletics (player's choice)
Knowledge: architecture = 4e Dungeoneering
Knowledge: geography = 4e History
Knowledge: nobility = 4e History
Use rope = Thievery

3.5 = 4e mechanic other than Skills
Craft, Perform, Profession = Backgrounds
Speak language = Linguist Feat
Use magic device = Default rule

All the 2e skills are right, though Engineering is a combo of Dungeoneering and Thievery, languages are in feats, Appraising is Streetwise, Rope Use is part of Thievery, Juggling is Thievery, Reading Lips is Insight, and Ventriloquism is Bluff

Thanks wrecan. 

I wasn't sure how to classify those but I can definitely see the relation.

I appreciate the feedback.  I will update the list tonight.

Do you see where my reasoning for my proposed groupings comes from?

I'm not asking if you agree, rather if you understand why I chose the way I did.

Yeah.  I agree with your assessment.  I'm going to be stealing from this liberally when I put out version 2 of my Options.

Feel free.

The important part is that we are working on a better system and that the developers can see the option when designing what is put into next.

One change in your list: 3e jump = 4e athletics, not acrobatics.

I was wondering if anyone would catch that.

I threw it into acrobatics because I feel that is actually where it belongs although it by 4e standards goes the other way.

Late to the party, but I would like to add my support for the OP's idea.  It has a nice, best of both worlds, kind of feel.

Maybe appraise is more appropriate under History? Watching the "Antiques Roadshow", the appraisers seem to use a lot of historical knowledge to make thier judgements.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 12:09AM, Valdark wrote:

Gadgetry: open lock, disable device, escape artist

Lets see I think I will call that invocations of Mecha and Pyrexis, and make those quick castings of knock and  summon gremlins and maybe a liquid bones mind over matter manipulation.  
 

Aug 29, 2012 -- 4:43PM, darius wrote:

Maybe appraise is more appropriate under History? Watching the "Antiques Roadshow", the appraisers seem to use a lot of historical knowledge to make thier judgements.

Interesting point.   I will take that into consideration. 

Aug 29, 2012 -- 3:42PM, Valdark wrote:

I was wondering if anyone would catch that. I threw it into acrobatics because I feel that is actually where it belongs although it by 4e standards goes the other way.

Considering that jumping is predominately strength, Athletics seems most appropriate.

Aug 29, 2012 -- 4:48PM, Mithrus wrote:

Aug 29, 2012 -- 3:42PM, Valdark wrote:

I was wondering if anyone would catch that. I threw it into acrobatics because I feel that is actually where it belongs although it by 4e standards goes the other way.

Considering that jumping is predominately strength, Athletics seems most appropriate.

Gymnasts and weight lifters might disagree.  

Aug 29, 2012 -- 4:44PM, Garthanos wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 12:09AM, Valdark wrote:

Gadgetry: open lock, disable device, escape artist

Lets see I think I will call that invocations of Mecha and Pyrexis, and make those quick castings of knock and  summon gremlins and maybe a liquid bones mind over matter manipulation.  
 

Nice reflavor. 

But regardless of which attribute you feel is most appropriate I think jumping is more acrobatic than it is athletic. 

Since acrobatics is actually clasified as an athletic activity by modern standards perhaps I need a different name classification. 

I think for Gadgetry I will use Devices instead unless I can find a better one.

Aug 29, 2012 -- 4:51PM, Valdark wrote:

Aug 29, 2012 -- 4:48PM, Mithrus wrote:

Aug 29, 2012 -- 3:42PM, Valdark wrote:

I was wondering if anyone would catch that. I threw it into acrobatics because I feel that is actually where it belongs although it by 4e standards goes the other way.

Considering that jumping is predominately strength, Athletics seems most appropriate.

Gymnasts and weight lifters might disagree.  

Jumping for distance is strength, pure and simple. It requires different training than weight lifting, but no amount of flexibility alone will allow you to leap great distances. More precisely it is a mix of strength and dexterity, as I have yet to see an olympic gymnist that wasn't both strong and limber.

I fully agree that in reality it is a combination.

Every action may even be multistat however the simplification to one stat can be used to describe a style of performance.

A nature skill might be based on rote memory, like Int. Or it might be actively responsive to the living forces of nature and be Wisdom. Or it might be creative and inspired or it might be Instinctive and Lucky (and based on CON).

Aug 29, 2012 -- 7:39AM, Valdark wrote:

The interesting thing to me is that the 4e solution actually grants a higher bonus prior to leveling than the 5e method. .

Someone had a recent post about how the numbers don't mean anything, what matters is the odds of the check.    It would  not matter if you did something as extreme as 'ability+lvl+10+skill' as long as the opposed DC is increased accordingly.  

If you look at the DC table in 5e vs.  4e it has narrowed easy to hard success range in line with the bonuses.  So in general they still follow the same strategy 2/3 odds of success so easy is no ability no training, medium is ability or training and hard is ability and training.  So your odds should not actually change.  The only thing that changes is if you are under qualified to the point you are going to fail, it just changes how badly you failed.  Since they declared they are not going to level monsters I am not even sure why they added training leveling to 5e.   If you want bounded accuracy to not break then you pretty much can't level anything.

advantage die has the advantage that it supports bounded accuracy by not blowing past the d20 with modifers, and it mathematically works with the 4e DC table.

The counterpoint to narrowing the gap in skill and unskilled is training becomes devalued,  it becomes less of a percentage gain that falls under the confidence interval on the average roll because sessions sees only a limited sample of d20 DC rolls. Here is a few sample sets of 10 rolls average, I get 8.6, 11.6, 8.9, 9.2.   Not doing so great my range is +3 for the average.   So if you want to really beat the odds the +3 training may not actually help you beat the variance, but a +5 will.    Lets try 100 rolls ea: I get 10, 10, 10.4, 9.7, 10.3, ok now we are less than a point variance.  I would be suprised if someone did that many DC rolls in a session.   This is why taking a +1 bonus on anything, really does not mean much, they only mean much if a handful of those add up.

Aug 29, 2012 -- 7:11PM, yarnevk wrote:

Aug 29, 2012 -- 7:39AM, Valdark wrote:

The interesting thing to me is that the 4e solution actually grants a higher bonus prior to leveling than the 5e method. .

Someone had a recent post about how the numbers don't mean anything, what matters is the odds of the check.    It would  not matter if you did something as extreme as 'ability+lvl+10+skill' as long as the opposed DC is increased accordingly.  

If you look at the DC table in 5e vs.  4e it has narrowed easy to hard success range in line with the bonuses.  So in general they still follow the same strategy 2/3 odds of success so easy is no ability no training, medium is ability or training and hard is ability and training.  So your odds should not actually change.  The only thing that changes is if you are under qualified to the point you are going to fail, it just changes how badly you failed.  Since they declared they are not going to level monsters I am not even sure why they added training leveling to 5e.   If you want bounded accuracy to not break then you pretty much can't level anything.

advantage die has the advantage that it supports bounded accuracy by not blowing past the d20 with modifers, and it mathematically works with the 4e DC table.

The counterpoint to narrowing the gap in skill and unskilled is training becomes devalued,  it becomes less of a percentage gain that falls under the confidence interval on the average roll because sessions sees only a limited sample of d20 DC rolls. Here is a few sample sets of 10 rolls average, I get 8.6, 11.6, 8.9, 9.2.   Not doing so great my range is +3 for the average.   So if you want to really beat the odds the +3 training may not actually help you beat the variance, but a +5 will.    Lets try 100 rolls ea: I get 10, 10, 10.4, 9.7, 10.3, ok now we are less than a point variance.  I would be suprised if someone did that many DC rolls in a session.   This is why taking a +1 bonus on anything, really does not mean much, they only mean much if a handful of those add up.

The bonus for training means more at higher levels than it does in a system with an auto leveling as in 4e or a constant scaling as in 3e.  

With Next those pluses will help put you ahead of the untrained but not so far that they don't have a chance of success in most situations. 

This to me is the beauty of the system.  It in itself is a blend of previous skill systems.   

You again missed my point, the values of your bonus does not matter, it matters what that is being compared to.  What matters is what you have to roll, not what the bonused roll is.   

The ability bonus leveling does NOT make your skill bonus weaker as you level, for the very simple reason that the DC table is also leveled.   This is a complaint of the trained wizard saying that stupid fighter got +5 on INT skills making him as good as the lvl1 wizard, when the wizard forgets he is also +5 on INT skills and now a lvl10 wizard, he does not realize nothing has changed the fighter still needs to roll 5 higher on the die because the DC has kept up with them both.

a +5+0+5 at lv1   and a +5+5+5  at lvl10 have the same odds of success, because the required roll to succeed is the same since the DC is also +5.   (approx. as I did not look up the actual table) For hard checks they also accounted for ability increases beyond level such as epic/paragon giving out even more ability bonuses.

If you instead had +3+0+0 at lvl1 you would have +3+5+0 at lvl10.  Your argument is that the +5 at lvl10 is much greater than the +3 of untrained, moderate skill, whereas the +5 is not as signficant at lvl10 if you had ability and training totaling +10.   This is not the case, since the DC keeps up, the untrained, moderate skill always has to make up for that lack of bonus in his roll, which is he needs 7 higher than the max ability/trained guy on the roll at both levels, his odds are exactly the same.

They could have chosen to not level ability, and not leveled the DC table, your odds would not have changed.  So why do it if it does not make you better? The reason for 4e levelling abilities is so that you had fine tuning of the difficulty of the challenge being over/under your level, which is the tool the DM had to adjust the odds without changing the story.   It means you can fight the orcs at the pass even though you are five levels past what the adventure was designed for, without having to change the adventure to be 'not-orcs'.   The orcs just themselves got tougher as they have been fighting for five levels waiting for you.

My point about training being +3 vs. +5 is that +3 is not enough to overcome the randomness of a die due to hot and cold streaks in any given sample of 10, such as the number of rolls in a skill challenge.   Saying it is a good thing for the untrained that it gives them a chance is doubletalk for saying it is a bad thing for the trained that their bonus is not enough to overcome the whim of the die compared to someone untrained.

And the reason for Next having bounded accuracy and the current skill setup is so that you can run that adventure as many levels later and all you have to do is throw in a few extra orcs. 

You won't have to adjust DCs to be level appropriate.

Adding more monsters IS changing the story of the adventure.   I suggest you reread the calling 4e fans thread if you do not understand that point yet.   A story that has three guards in a small room protecting the necromancer becomes very different if you make it eight guards, there is no room to move, it makes a lot more sense to just make them higher level guards.   I know this because I did not have the leveling math in essentials, so I initially did the more monsters trick as it was easy to do.   I finally realized since I have DDI I can reprint the leveled up monster sheets, and now the stories are making a lot more sense when there is not a horde of monsters everywhere you go.

If you have outleveled the goblins/kobolds skills they will not be as sneaky or perceptive, you can't level the player and not have provisions to level the monsters skills, because that basically says you have to change the story to some other monster that are more sneaky/perceptive.  That is not orcs because they are not as sneaky, in 4e I have some higher level goblins in my Nentir Vale book I can use, in 5e that tribe would not exist because it violates the rules of an 'orc is an ork'

Leveling the monsters also changes the adventure. 

I see no difference here. 

If you don't feel they are enough why not just tag on level appropriate damage and skills and call them the same creature?

If you don't feel that the bounded accuracy creatures work what in the system prevents you from doing this?

Aug 29, 2012 -- 2:53PM, Valdark wrote:

So I did my best to put the 2-3e skills/NWP into 4e categories. Check my list for errors.

I'll give it a shot:

4e Acrobatics-3ebalance/jump/tumble-2ejumping/tightrope walking/tumbling
Athletics-3e climb/swim-2e mountaineering/Swimming/running

High and long jump are under Athletics in 4e, jumping (falling) from a height is Acrobatics.  

Dungeoneering-3e knowledge dungeoneering

Also tracking, intuit direction, in underground settings.

Nature-3e Handle animal/knowledge nature/ride/survival

Also tracking in natural environments.

Skills not in 4e:  3.5 Appraise Concentration Craft Decipher script Escape Artist Knowledge:architecture, geography, nobility Perform Profession Speak language Use magic device Use rope

In order: Streetwise, N/A (nothing to concentrate on), N/A (non-adventuring skill), Arcana, Acrobatics (or Athletics, but for the fluff of escape artist, accrobatics), Dungeoneering, Nature, History, Bluff/Diplomacy, N/A (non-adventuring skill), Linguist (feat), N/A (virtually no restrictions on item use), N/A (universal).

2e secondary skills Armorer Bowyer/fletcher Farmer Gambler Groom Jeweler Leather worker Limner/painter Mason Miner Navigator Sailor Scribe Shipwright Tailor/weaver Teamster/freighter Trader/barterer Weapon smith Woodworker/carpenter No skill of measurable worth

I like 'no skill of measurable worth.'    Yeah, those are all non-adventuring skills.

Thanks for the feedback Tony.

With Jump let me elaborate on why I see it fitting the way I do.

I know that 4e clasified it as athletics but I see it as more of an acrobatic skill.

That being said I feel the long jump could be augmented by running.  Since the real key to the long jump is speed and timing your stride. 

I ran track for 6 years and competed in the long and high jump.  The timing and form was equally if not more important than the strength of your launch. 

I usually lost out to more limber and smaller athletes since I primarily focused on my 440 dash and the strength/endurance necessary to compete in that event.

I also ran hurdles and there again it was the more limber and lithe athletes that prevailed because their sense of timing and flexibility were superior to my own.

I know that trying to use a simulationist argument for the game as a whole is an excersize in futility but I can't help but classify jumping in this way due to my personal experiences.

Aug 29, 2012 -- 2:53PM, Valdark wrote:

The below have no 4e equivalent. (note) I may have missed some so correct me where I am wrong

4e boy going over your list now.  Sorry I've been absent.  Remember if you need a solid 4e view, PM me. 

Appraise: Streetwise.
Concentration: No longer needed, via rules change.
Craft: No skill, covered by background instead.
Decipher script: Intelligence check
Escape Artist: Theivery
Knowledge:architecture: Dungeoneeering
Knowledge:geography, nobility: History
Perform: Background based, no skill
Profession: Background based, no skill
Speak language: Int check
Use magic device: Rules change, no longer needed
Use rope: Thievery

2e secondary skills

Armorer,Bowyer/fletcher,Farmer,Gambler,Groom,Jeweler,Leather worker,Limner/painter, Sailor, Scribe, Shipwright, Tailor/weaver, Teamster/freighter, Trader/barterer, Weapon smith, Woodworker/carpenter, No skill of measurable worth: Background, no skill

Mason, Miner: Dungeoneering
Navigator: Nature

2e non weapon proficiencies (skills and powers expanded list)

Agriculture
Blacksmithing
Boat piloting
Brewing
Carpentry
Cobbling
Cooking 
Dancing
Engineering
Gaming
Heraldry
Leather working
Mining
Modern languages
Musical instrument 
Navigation
Painting
Pottery
Rope use
Sculpting
Singing
Seamanship
Stone masonry 
Tailoring
Weaving

Ancient languages
Astrology
Reading/writing

Appraising 
Blind-fighting
Cryptography
Gem cutting
Juggling
Reading lips
Set snares
Throwing 
Ventriloquism


Armorer
Bowyer/fletcher 
Charioteering
Gaming 
Weapon smithing
Astronomy
 
All covered by background, not skill.

Note that skills took on a different form in 4e, they were meant to cover only adventuring activities, not general ones.  Many of the things not covered by skills in 4e were intended to be accomplished either automatically or by background, much like in BECMI. 

Aug 31, 2012 -- 2:39AM, Valdark wrote:

Thanks for the feedback Tony. With Jump let me elaborate on why I see it fitting the way I do. I know that 4e clasified it as athletics but I see it as more of an acrobatic skill. That being said I feel the long jump could be augmented by running. Since the real key to the long jump is speed and timing your stride. I ran track for 6 years and competed in the long and high jump. The timing and form was equally if not more important than the strength of your launch. I usually lost out to more limber and smaller athletes since I primarily focused on my 440 dash and the strength/endurance necessary to compete in that event. I also ran hurdles and there again it was the more limber and lithe athletes that prevailed because their sense of timing and flexibility were superior to my own. I know that trying to use a simulationist argument for the game as a whole is an excersize in futility but I can't help but classify jumping in this way due to my personal experiences.

Such a training is the ideal circumstance for the "DM's Friend", the +2 to the check, which 4e DM are encouraged to use in just these curcumstances.

Thanks Pash,

That is one thing I really liked about the 4e approach.  Making crafts and professions separate from adventuring skills. 

I wouldn't mind them getting an equal but separate progression though. 

How's it going Sir Knight?  Besides driving off cliffs in alighnment filled busses that is.

Aug 31, 2012 -- 2:51AM, Valdark wrote:

Thanks Pash, That is one thing I really liked about the 4e approach. Making crafts and professions separate from adventuring skills.

That was huge for me.  Once I didn't have to "pay" to have a background, I made a bunch of characters with some sort of cool non-adventurous background.

I wouldn't mind them getting an equal but separate progression though. How's it going Sir Knight? Besides driving off cliffs in alighnment filled busses that is.

Oh, overall, I'm doing good.  Swmabie, some others and I are doing a BECMI game, which is interesting.  I haven't done BECMI before, furthest back I've been is 1e.  Family stuff has been busy these days, we've had birthdays, funereals and relatives in town, but overall, I'm good.  I really wanna try that Knight's Playtest.  Who's gonna DM?


Anyway, no problem.  Remember to light up the Pash Signal if you have any questions. 

Well Brightmantle is asking me to DM but I am aching to just play. 

I am DM 99.9 percent of the time.  I got to be a player for two sessions in the last 6 years.

But I can take the reigns if nobody else is up for it.

Aug 31, 2012 -- 3:08AM, Valdark wrote:

Well Brightmantle is asking me to DM but I am aching to just play. I am DM 99.9 percent of the time. I got to be a player for two sessions in the last 6 years. But I can take the reigns if nobody else is up for it.

I'll make you a deal, Mike.  You DM the Knights' first playtest, through the whole adventure, and I'll do the second.

Aug 31, 2012 -- 3:13AM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

Aug 31, 2012 -- 3:08AM, Valdark wrote:

Well Brightmantle is asking me to DM but I am aching to just play. I am DM 99.9 percent of the time. I got to be a player for two sessions in the last 6 years. But I can take the reigns if nobody else is up for it.

I'll make you a deal, Mike.  You DM the Knights' first playtest, through the whole adventure, and I'll do the second.

Deal, on a couple of conditions. 

1. You confer with the other Knights an get everyone to start on their characters.  

2. Nobody is to tell anyone but me what they made prior to play.  

3. Make sure everyone provides motivations and goals.

Make any backstory you want.  Any cultrue is acceptable.   Any background story can and will be encorporated into my adventure.  I craft around my players so I will need all of the characters before I begin weaving the plot. 

Let everyone know that there are no rails so if you go off the map I will be prepared.   

Aug 31, 2012 -- 3:20AM, Valdark wrote:

Aug 31, 2012 -- 3:13AM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

Aug 31, 2012 -- 3:08AM, Valdark wrote:

Well Brightmantle is asking me to DM but I am aching to just play. I am DM 99.9 percent of the time. I got to be a player for two sessions in the last 6 years. But I can take the reigns if nobody else is up for it.

I'll make you a deal, Mike.  You DM the Knights' first playtest, through the whole adventure, and I'll do the second.

Deal, on a couple of conditions. 

1. You confer with the other Knights an get everyone to start on their characters.  

2. Nobody is to tell anyone but me what they made prior to play.  

3. Make sure everyone provides motivations and goals.

Make any backstory you want.  Any cultrue is acceptable.   Any background story can and will be encorporated into my adventure.  I craft around my players so I will need all of the characters before I begin weaving the plot. 

Let everyone know that there are no rails so if you go off the map I will be prepared.   

Total deal.  I'ma report this on the K-WTF page.

EDIT:  Totally done. 

The basic skill structure looks like a fairly workable list, but I'm really not sure about teh use of "History".  I think it would be better to have a heading of "General Knowledge" or something like that along with an admission that this is an area for the GM to add whatever setting related knowledge skills are needed.  Thecnically this would allow it to step on the toes of arcane lore and religious lore, but history skills will do that to some extent anyway.

Aug 31, 2012 -- 12:14AM, Valdark wrote:

Leveling the monsters also changes the adventure. I see no difference here. If you don't feel they are enough why not just tag on level appropriate damage and skills and call them the same creature? If you don't feel that the bounded accuracy creatures work what in the system prevents you from doing this?

The simple fact that leveled rules for monsters do not exist because monsters are not supposed to be leveled?  That it is suspected that the monster devs do not even have internal leveling rules and are making it up as they go along? 

Leveling the creature does not change the experience of the adventure, it preserves the same odds had the PC played it at level as written.  An extra story line that 'your patron asked you to go here five levels ago and you failed too meant the monsters in the meantime killed more adventurers and townfolk and got really good at killing so do not expect it to be easymode', is not really changing the storyline anymore than selecting which hook you use to get them there is part of the storyline.  Saying the goblins hired a horde of orcs or brought in another goblin for every level even if it fills every square in the room is a storyline change, which is OK to do on DM option, but he needs a way to keep it on level with the same number of players on stage with the same odds.

This is an issue for skills since originally 5e skills where not even going to exist, then ended up existing but not going to be leveled, then they ended up being leveled, and now you are making skill and levels more complex to bring back some earlier edition playstyle.  The misconception about 4e is that it leveled skills, instead it was leveling abilities since skills are just bonuses to ability checks.  If you level skills instead of abilities I don't really know what the rule is, since the DM is not going to pretend the monster is a PC.  So if you are coming up with rules for PC leveling skills, then you need to consider rules for the monsters.

In 4e it was easy +/-1 skills every +/-2 lvls, for both PC and monster, there are simple formulas for bringing someone up to lvl on both sides of the screen using published math that contains the variable level for each stat in the block. 

Aug 31, 2012 -- 6:43AM, yarnevk wrote:

Aug 31, 2012 -- 12:14AM, Valdark wrote:

Leveling the monsters also changes the adventure. I see no difference here. If you don't feel they are enough why not just tag on level appropriate damage and skills and call them the same creature? If you don't feel that the bounded accuracy creatures work what in the system prevents you from doing this?

The simple fact that leveled rules for monsters do not exist because monsters are not supposed to be leveled?  That it is suspected that the monster devs do not even have internal leveling rules and are making it up as they go along? 

Leveling the creature does not change the experience of the adventure, it preserves the same odds had the PC played it at level as written.  An extra story line that 'your patron asked you to go here five levels ago and you failed too meant the monsters in the meantime killed more adventurers and townfolk and got really good at killing so do not expect it to be easymode', is not really changing the storyline anymore than selecting which hook you use to get them there is part of the storyline.  Saying the goblins hired a horde of orcs or brought in another goblin for every level even if it fills every square in the room is a storyline change, which is OK to do on DM option, but he needs a way to keep it on level with the same number of players on stage with the same odds.

This is an issue for skills since originally 5e skills where not even going to exist, then ended up existing but not going to be leveled, then they ended up being leveled, and now you are making skill and levels more complex to bring back some earlier edition playstyle.  The misconception about 4e is that it leveled skills, instead it was leveling abilities since skills are just bonuses to ability checks.  If you level skills instead of abilities I don't really know what the rule is, since the DM is not going to pretend the monster is a PC.  So if you are coming up with rules for PC leveling skills, then you need to consider rules for the monsters.

In 4e it was easy +/-1 skills every +/-2 lvls, for both PC and monster, there are simple formulas for bringing someone up to lvl on both sides of the screen using published math that contains the variable level for each stat in the block. 

Most published adventures I have played or read include some ultimate goal that you have to prevent from occurring.  If your PCs aren't there to save the day something bad is supposed to happen.  The storyline should change dramatically if they ignore the quest and go another way.

What happens to the town you start in when the goblins continue kidnapping and raiding stores?   Or when the dark priest gets to complete his spell?

Unless you want to keep the adventure in a level appropriate vacuum you absolutely have to change things.  Whether that change is more creatures, leved monsters, destroyed villages, murdered hostages, or an empty dungeon is up to you as a DM.  If you want the exact same thing but at higher level you will still have work to do. 

I prefer the world to evolve around PC decisions rather than sit static awaiting their arrival. 

The point still remains, this system is not possible to level monsters skills.   There is no formula for it.   It is not for you to decide that a DM cannot level his monsters, nor decry their reasons.   It was easily supported and recommended in 4e as part of the system math for good reasons even if YOU do not like them.
 

Aug 31, 2012 -- 4:59AM, PrawnPower wrote:

The basic skill structure looks like a fairly workable list, but I'm really not sure about teh use of "History".  I think it would be better to have a heading of "General Knowledge" or something like that along with an admission that this is an area for the GM to add whatever setting related knowledge skills are needed.  Thecnically this would allow it to step on the toes of arcane lore and religious lore, but history skills will do that to some extent anyway.

That is not a bad suggestion. I think the General Knowledge heading is indeed appropriate. 

Aug 31, 2012 -- 8:58PM, yarnevk wrote:

The point still remains, this system is not possible to level monsters skills.   There is no formula for it.   It is not for you to decide that a DM cannot level his monsters, nor decry their reasons.   It was easily supported and recommended in 4e as part of the system math for good reasons even if YOU do not like them.
 

I never said I didn't like leveling monsters.  I said I like that I don't have to.

Just because it isn't provided doesn't make it impossible.  

The skill leveling for PCs is actually a good guideline.  

Add 1pt/2lvs to existing monster skills.  Don't exceed 7 prior to stat mod.  

 

Sep 1, 2012 -- 1:08PM, Valdark wrote:

I never said I didn't like leveling monsters.  I said I like that I don't have to.
Just because it isn't provided doesn't make it impossible.  
The skill leveling for PCs is actually a good guideline.  
Add 1pt/2lvs to existing monster skills.  Don't exceed 7 prior to stat mod.  
 

And you dont have to lvl monsters in 4e, the point is that it is one of many options so the DM can change the adventure to fit the story they want to tell, so don't remove the option.  It needs to be part of a proposed skills system revamp, use it or not people need to know how to lvl up monsters consistently, this should not be a house rule.

Even 4e is inconsistent between errata and hardbounds it gets confusing, and it is absent from essentials.  Even DDI does it differently due to lazy coders, you are supposed to level your stat header and ignore abilities per the books since they are not used in contests with PCs (it is only DM RP informative). But lvl it up in DDI it also levels abilities then rederives the stat block combined with the lvlup of the stat block. The ability leveling for monsters is similar to PC occuring at similar levels but not always the same.  Not sure if that is intentional or bugged as I do not see this documented elsewhere, clearly the coder was lazy and instead of picking the top two ability at every fourth lvl he leveled all the abilities. This means your non perceptive monsters might very well get perception bump of +3 on a simple level up, which no longer makes them below average on that stat.

I simply go with DDI's version on the theory it is the most core rule of them all, it is just too easy to lvlup and reprint and not have to go in and edit each stat.   But not everyone will have a 5e DDI if it exists, so it needs to be in the printed rules.

Sep 2, 2012 -- 8:28AM, yarnevk wrote:

Sep 1, 2012 -- 1:08PM, Valdark wrote:

I never said I didn't like leveling monsters.  I said I like that I don't have to.
Just because it isn't provided doesn't make it impossible.  
The skill leveling for PCs is actually a good guideline.  
Add 1pt/2lvs to existing monster skills.  Don't exceed 7 prior to stat mod.  
 

And you dont have to lvl monsters in 4e, the point is that it is one of many options so the DM can change the adventure to fit the story they want to tell, so don't remove the option.  It needs to be part of a proposed skills system revamp, use it or not people need to know how to lvl up monsters consistently, this should not be a house rule.

Even 4e is inconsistent between errata and hardbounds it gets confusing, and it is absent from essentials.  Even DDI does it differently due to lazy coders, you are supposed to level your stat header and ignore abilities per the books since they are not used in contests with PCs (it is only DM RP informative). But lvl it up in DDI it also levels abilities then rederives the stat block combined with the lvlup of the stat block. The ability leveling for monsters is similar to PC occuring at similar levels but not always the same.  Not sure if that is intentional or bugged as I do not see this documented elsewhere, clearly the coder was lazy and instead of picking the top two ability at every fourth lvl he leveled all the abilities. This means your non perceptive monsters might very well get perception bump of +3 on a simple level up, which no longer makes them below average on that stat.

I simply go with DDI's version on the theory it is the most core rule of them all, it is just too easy to lvlup and reprint and not have to go in and edit each stat.   But not everyone will have a 5e DDI if it exists, so it needs to be in the printed rules.

Your comment is confusing.  

Do you or don't you have to level monsters in 4e?

Is it easy or not?

Because first you say you don't have to.  

Then you say it is easy.

Then you say it is confusing and inconsistent.  

So what exactly is it that makes my skill proposal, which in no way alters the numbers involved in Next concerning rate of advancement or max bonus, a problem?

It isn't the monster leveling,  I haven't claimed to be solving that issue because I don't see it as either an issue or in any way related to my proposal. 

I have gone way off topic in order to answer your questions. 

I will no longer be doing so. 

If you have further questions or ideas concerning the skill system itself I will be happy to discuss them here. 

If you wish to discuss another topic send me a PM or create a related thread and PM me the link.

They hinted on the PAX WOTC video that monsters will have experience values assigned, and based on how much experience is granted, the DM will have a list of abilities that can be granted within the experience budget. It would not be too far fetched to assume that skills, skill bonuses, armor class, damage thresholds. etc will all be part of the resources available.