Community

I will never run DC's like this

Basically, the DC will depend GM fiat depending upon
1) Is it a narrow or broad skill? The more narrow skill there is used the lower will the DC be
2) Do the player have a good strategy for using the skill and do he have the tools for it?
3) The task difficulty

Nov 22, 2012 -- 12:49AM, faer4 wrote:

The GM says "It's a DC 14 roll to get to the top of this wall", and then the PCs apply any skill that is remotely applicable to their roll to do so.

Background Profession : Sailor.
Skill tax : use rope

How can you be a sailor and knowing nothing about ropes by default ?
Use rope skill makes no sense with the current backgrounds.

Everybody should be competent about anything concerning his chosen background.
Even if we make endless lists of skills, there will always be overlap.

Why going to simplicity and ease of play in combat rules and complicate combat and out of combat aspects by having to check all the available skills and their interpretations ?
If skills have to be interpreted, and it will always be the case, it's better to make them cover a global domain of competence IMO instead of forcing the player to take one hour to search to mimic this domain of competence by chosing and picking restricted skills.

Nov 22, 2012 -- 2:24AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

That's just it; the proposed uses of Use Rope would be a catch-all, GOD MOD Skill.

I use Use Rope to hypnotize you (tying a granny knot in the end of my rope and swinging it in front of your face). See? Too broad of a Skill!

Exactly. There is player creativity, and there is taking it too far. When a skill is as vaguely defined as Use Rope you quickly get into discussions about whether or not it does apply and I have seen some IMO weird reasonings come up on why a particular skill apply (e.g. lets use Religion to besiege the gods to calm down this river).

The funny thing with these kind of skills is in that in my experience when a player takes such options, the DM goes out of his way to make sure the player uses it (and those not trained cannot) and if no PC actually had that skill its importance would either be downplayed or replaced by a much more prevelant skill.

Nov 22, 2012 -- 2:26AM, faer4 wrote:

Nov 22, 2012 -- 1:09AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

We're discussing D&DNext here; where skills have been disassociated from specific abilities.

So, you pick an ABILITY that is applicable, then apply an additional bonus from a skill that might be specifically applicable.

Uh, yes. That's what I said. "It's a DC 14 roll to get on top of this wall", and then the PC picks the appropriate Ability + Skill to do so.

The ABILITY is the broad category, the SKILL should be very specific (to get an additional bonus).

Nov 22, 2012 -- 3:52AM, Monsieur_Moustache wrote:

Background Profession : Sailor.
Skill tax : use rope

How can you be a sailor and knowing nothing about ropes by default ?
Use rope skill makes no sense with the current backgrounds.

Everybody should be competent about anything concerning his chosen background.
Even if we make endless lists of skills, there will always be overlap.

Why going to simplicity and ease of play in combat rules and complicate combat and out of combat aspects by having to check all the available skills and their interpretations ?
If skills have to be interpreted, and it will always be the case, it's better to make them cover a global domain of competence IMO instead of forcing the player to take one hour to search to mimic this domain of competence by chosing and picking restricted skills.

If you had the profession sailor skill in 3.5 and wanted to do something roperelated would I let you have the skill roll but give you a higher DC compared to a situation were a player decided to apply use rope unless it is a situation were it is a huge advantage to have sea training.

Example, rope work in the rigging in stormy water in order to save the sails. In that case would profession sailor give a lower DC compared to use rope

Nov 22, 2012 -- 3:55AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Nov 22, 2012 -- 2:24AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

That's just it; the proposed uses of Use Rope would be a catch-all, GOD MOD Skill.

I use Use Rope to hypnotize you (tying a granny knot in the end of my rope and swinging it in front of your face). See? Too broad of a Skill!

Exactly. There is player creativity, and there is taking it too far. When a skill is as vaguely defined as Use Rope you quickly get into discussions about whether or not it does apply and I have seen some IMO weird reasonings come up on why a particular skill apply (e.g. lets use Religion to besiege the gods to calm down this river).

The funny thing with these kind of skills is in that in my experience when a player takes such options, the DM goes out of his way to make sure the player uses it (and those not trained cannot) and if no PC actually had that skill its importance would either be downplayed or replaced by a much more prevelant skill.

Well, fair enough, if the players wanted to use religion for such an attempt, but it would probably be a very timeconsuming ceremony and the religion DC would be really high, that is, the players would have to be very creative in obtaining bonuses
for instance

holy place could grant a ceremony: adventure needed to locate the ruin of a holy place there can be used for the ceremony
burning on unique incense: another adventure in nature combined with profession herbalist or knowledge nature to locate the incense
specific moon and star contellations: well, another adventure to figure out what would be the best time for the ceremony
and so forth

Nov 22, 2012 -- 4:31AM, Gustaveren wrote:

Nov 22, 2012 -- 3:52AM, Monsieur_Moustache wrote:

Background Profession : Sailor.
Skill tax : use rope

How can you be a sailor and knowing nothing about ropes by default ?
Use rope skill makes no sense with the current backgrounds.

Everybody should be competent about anything concerning his chosen background.
Even if we make endless lists of skills, there will always be overlap.

Why going to simplicity and ease of play in combat rules and complicate combat and out of combat aspects by having to check all the available skills and their interpretations ?
If skills have to be interpreted, and it will always be the case, it's better to make them cover a global domain of competence IMO instead of forcing the player to take one hour to search to mimic this domain of competence by chosing and picking restricted skills.

If you had the profession sailor skill in 3.5 and wanted to do something roperelated would I let you have the skill roll but give you a higher DC compared to a situation were a player decided to apply use rope unless it is a situation were it is a huge advantage to have sea training.

Example, rope work in the rigging in stormy water in order to save the sails. In that case would profession sailor give a lower DC compared to use rope

The knowledge of some rope uses is vital in many professions, even more in medieval setting, but noone specialize in all the uses of ropes. It's the same for stealth, being stealthy in a city and in natural settings are two entirely different things. The illogical overlap of the long skill list is there.

By learning use rope, you are able to do things you shouldn't be able to do without coming from all the backgrounds possible using ropes.

There's no universal knowledge of specific skills (except maybe for some focused immortals as we are discussing D&D), even being a master cook does not make you able to be competent in doing any meal possible, even with the translated recipe under his eyes.

If a character knows all the possible ways to use ropes, then it has to be his entire background, because he had to learn them from all the different backgrounds using them in specific ways.

The current skill list is a mix of domain of competences and specific skills. So either the skill list is too long or it is too short.

Personally do i find it fair, that people can use a rope use skill in different situations.
Basically, it is the same situation when people change job from one type of work to another type of work. Some skill sets turns out to be usefull in other fields and the more types of skills you can point out is usefull in the new type of work the greater chance of obtaining the job

Nov 22, 2012 -- 5:17AM, Gustaveren wrote:

Personally do i find it fair, that people can use a rope use skill in different situations.
Basically, it is the same situation when people change job from one type of work to another type of work. Some skill sets turns out to be usefull in other fields and the more types of skills you can point out is usefull in the new type of work the greater chance of obtaining the job

But if backgrounds and class were defining your domains of competences, the result would be exactly what you described. If you come from a spellcasting class, your level could be added to another spellcasting class level regarding shared competences, but it would be ignored if the multiclass isn't concerned by spellcasting and related domains of competences.

Backgrounds would be like 0-level classes in the character progression.

In the example of Use Rope, it translates as being able to regularily be able to increase in practice and knowledge about rope, even when your profile doesn't favor the maintenance of your level of competence in it.
When you focus on mastering weapons or spells, and increasing your chances of survival, there's nothing to justify the character being an absolute master of a focused skills non related to its profile. He can remember or be competent in some uses, but it's not being able to remember any knot possible or any specific uses of ropes in any domain of competences.

The 2nd edition skill system was really bad, the 3rd one too complicated and still retaining too much from 2nd, and the 4th edition one was still doing the mistake of offering skills unrelated to the domains of competences requiring them.
It's like the D&D skill system is unable to truly evolves.
D&D class system is based on archetypes, but it seems that the archetype point of view is unable to permeate the skill system. Even when it would help with the problem the devs seem to about defining classes.

I liked the 3E skill system. For me is the 3E skill system one of the selling points with 3.x E, but again

I have always been fond of complexity

There is another type of Skill system i also like, but that one is also complex, basically

Class-levels systems were you gain a certain amount of experience points and can use them to buy ability increases and skill increases. In that type of system is the use and improvement of weapons and the use and improvement of specific schools of spells just exp expensive skills or abilities

If D&D next is going to include a more granular skill system then it needs to adopt a point buy system much like 2e had.    That way simple skills like Use rope only cost one point, but weapon smithing might cost 2 or 3 points.   


I wonder if they will bring back reading/writing as a skill.    

Nov 22, 2012 -- 6:55AM, dmgorgon wrote:

If D&D next is going to include a more granular skill system then it needs to adopt a point buy system much like 2e had.    That way simple skills like Use rope only cost one point, but weapon smithing might cost 2 or 3 points.   


I wonder if they will bring back reading/writing as a skill.    

I would be perfectly fine with 'Skill Slots' (instead of Proficiency Slots). So those that want their 'broad' / 'combined' skills can have them, they just have to pay 2 or 3 for the price of 1.

Anyways, I've always been a fan of 2nd Edition proficiencies, it just makes more sense to me and gives allot more character flavour then 3E/4E's ridged skill system.

just a side question.

how does it work if 2 skills aplie in a certain situation ?

do you take the higest skill bonus, or aply both if the player had 2 skills that aply in the situation ?  

Nov 22, 2012 -- 7:09AM, edwin_su wrote:

just a side question.

how does it work if 2 skills aplie in a certain situation ?

do you take the higest skill bonus, or aply both if the player had 2 skills that aply in the situation ?  

I usually just ask the player to use his best skill. If its a knowledge check, my answer may be different however, so in that case, I'll give him/her the option of rolling both.

Nov 22, 2012 -- 7:09AM, edwin_su wrote:

just a side question.

how does it work if 2 skills aplie in a certain situation ?

do you take the higest skill bonus, or aply both if the player had 2 skills that aply in the situation ?  

Maybe he would get advantage?    

Nov 22, 2012 -- 6:15AM, Gustaveren wrote:

I liked the 3E skill system. For me is the 3E skill system one of the selling points with 3.x E, but again

I have always been fond of complexity

There is another type of Skill system i also like, but that one is also complex, basically

maybe we can come to a compromise ?

the basic skill system:
would have broad skills like survival, atletics nice big chunky groups.
and the basic advancement that you get 1 skill point every 2 levels to improve a skill.

advanced skill system:
each broad skill of the basic system would have sub skills.
when you spend a skill point to improve a skill you would get a number of points equal to the number of sub skills that main skill has that you can divide among those sub skills.

example:
if survival would have 7 sub skills, you would get 7 points that you can divide among the survival sub skills when you chose to improve survival.
so you could chose to focus on a certain sub skill like building shelter,navigation or rope use.
 

Nov 22, 2012 -- 7:09AM, edwin_su wrote:

just a side question.

how does it work if 2 skills aplie in a certain situation ?

do you take the higest skill bonus, or aply both if the player had 2 skills that aply in the situation ?  

Depends, sometimes can the character roll a second time using the other skill if he failed his roll using the first skill by saying

I am trying to accomplish the same but in a different way
well, the better strategy the lower would the DC be

other times would the second skill simply grant a synergy / advantage bonus to the skill roll for the first skill

Nov 22, 2012 -- 6:15AM, Gustaveren wrote:

I liked the 3E skill system. For me is the 3E skill system one of the selling points with 3.x E, but again

I have always been fond of complexity

There is another type of Skill system i also like, but that one is also complex, basically

Class-levels systems were you gain a certain amount of experience points and can use them to buy ability increases and skill increases. In that type of system is the use and improvement of weapons and the use and improvement of specific schools of spells just exp expensive skills or abilities

I wanted to write classless and levelless systems and not class-levels systems

I see at least 3 conceptions of rpg skills here.

• Focused universal skills : You can do anything doable with this skill, indepandantly of any normal parameter (like the many professions that do not use it the same way, or familiarity with the surrounding concerned by the specific uses).
It's the D&D default skill system in all its editions. 4th edition just reduced the number into "imposed themes".
The player is never limited in the use of the skills applications, but it's not realistic and complex to handle from character creation to game sessions. Aquiring a skill is not a huge step in character's life, but a player often find his character uncomplete at creation, unable to choose all the skills normally possessed by its archetype. Two characters following the same archetype can have different skills at low level, but will grow to have the same skills as soon as possible. If you want to be the master of infiltration, you can start with sneak and other athletic aspects of infiltration, or you can start with Disguise bluff and other social skills, but in the end, you want the sneaky and the disguise part to complete the archetype.

• General themed skills (or domains of competences) : You can do anything competently, provided the ability checks are related to the theme. A Survival skill following this system would allow to make sneak, forage, perception or track checks in natural surrounding, and only there. The urban counterpart would be streetwise. It's more realistic, but it assumes that you are invested equally in all aspects of the skill, even if everybody tend to favor some a little more than others. Overspecialization can be handled through feats or more specialized backgrounds (the actual skill system doesn't allow too specialized background as they have to offer at least four skills.
This system reduces drastically the skill number on a character sheet, but increases the size of their descriptions (and do not not necessarily reduce the number of skill choices, which is more a publication problem than else). Aquiring a skill becomes a huge evolution in the character's life. One or two skills are generally enough to cover all the classic abilities given to an archetype.

• Full archetypal skills : Your background and/or your class define your domains of competences. The difference between two classes with the same background is zero. The player can do anything the chosen combination is supposed being able to do but is limited to it. Overspecialization or different domains of competence can only come from feats.

I don't think there can be a compromise, but they would make interesting modules.

Okay, more summary.   Those used to 3e skills tend to find use rope more reasonable.   The general consensus is that use rope is poorly defined - with some people arguing that such a broad definition makes the skill sufficiently broad (hence swing on a rope being part if the skill) and some arguing that a broad definition makes finding the edges difficult (hence tying a rope to hypnotize people).   
By far, I think the best comments were mand who said that skills aren't guaranteed to be balanced (true) and the person who pointed out that if people have a skill, the dm will be more likely to make it a factor, compared to hand waving if no one has the skill.   

At this point, I don't see a path forward.  If we define skills narrowly, then it's hard to argue any skill should not be included - whether pottery, knowledge: archeology, or yoga.   The only argument left is to argue that skills should be defined as clearly as possible to avoid argument.   Rename it "knot tying" and much of the arguments disappear.   
If we define skills broadly, we'll need to define use rope better, to make it broad but not unreasonable.   If nothing else, manipulate rope is a weird description, and means different things to different people.   Some are arguing passionately about what it should include, but it's an argument specifically because many people find using a that skill for leaping from rope to rope counter intuitive.  If we want a broad skill that reflects rope use, let's figure out how to define it logically so that a player doesn't take it assuming one outcome, only to be told no from the dm. 

However, for thise who likenuse rope and say it leads to creativity, why should we stop there?    Wood is a useful material, as well as stone?   Is rope really unique in its construction, or do we like use rope _just_ because of its history?

Nov 22, 2012 -- 2:26AM, faer4 wrote:

"You can employ Use Rope to manipulate or tie rope or similar material."

Emphasis on "manipulate"; pretty much any activity involving rope requires you to manipulate it, and thus Use Rope applies.

So... I can use Use Rope to dominate people by manipulating the rope in a hypnotizing manner?

Nov 22, 2012 -- 2:26AM, faer4 wrote:

That said, I dislike the explicit nature of "Use Rope" because it is very bland, and the fact remains that your background gives you what, +3 to four skills that you need to make a case for in order to utilize them the way you want them?
To drive home the point, which sounds more natural:

• Could I add my Use Rope skill to this Dexterity check because I have a Bounty Hunter background?
• Could I add my Former Bounty Hunter of the Netheril Nobility background to this Dexterity check?

The former. The latter isn't a skill. It gives you more than just a+3 to the roll, as well; you get an additional +1 to one skill every few levels.

I wasn't asking mechanics, I was asking "feel" and aesthetics.  I wasn't looking at the argument from the perspective of someone who is used to the skill system.

It's like an argument a player of mine in 4E had for using Thievery to detect traps instead of Perception: "I should know how to detect traps, because I'm a thief, and I use my knowledge about traps [particularly where they're best placed, how they'd be hidden, what sort of triggers they'd have, etc.] to find them".

So in my mind I ask, why not just have the background itself provide the bonus, rather than trying to make an arbitrary list of skills?

Nov 22, 2012 -- 2:26AM, faer4 wrote:

The fact that D&D Next's background system forces the player to restrict all his PC's potentially wonderful background details into four skills and one trait feels SEVERELY deflating for me if I was in that position, as it's a really bland way of handling skills.  Then again, maybe I simply find 13th Age's background/skill system to be so much better than most systems out there (4E included) that I find myself hard-pressed to change it in any way (other than in max values and available number of background points).

And 13th Age's system works how, exactly?

You highlight the details of your character's background, assign points to the background details, and then whenever you make a check, you add the most applicable background detail to your check.

So if you're an Amateur at Rope Tying and you give yourself +1 to that skill, it's like you give yourself the Use Rope skill but it's only +1 instead of a predetermined bonus and it only applies to rope tying.  If you're a World-Class Wrangling Cowboy and you give yourself +5 to that skill, it's like you give yourself the Use Rope skill but at +5 instead of a predetermined bonus and it applies to everything associated with wrangling (rope tying, lassoing) and interacting with cowboys and rodeo enthusiasts on top of that.  The only limitation would be that you have to coordinate with the DM so that come game time there aren't any misunderstandings.

EDIT: A more detailed character background would be something like "I was born in the Himalayas and grew up as a peace-loving nomad with my tribe, when a group of raiders caught us by surprise and I was left orphaned as my parents defended me from some of the brigands.  One day I got lost and ended up in the city of Bangladesh, where I learned the ways of civilization.  While I began my life there as a beggar, a kindly baker took me in and raised me as his own son, eventually becoming an apprentice in his bakeshop.  After awhile I decided that staying as a baker all my life wasn't enough, so I ran away, wanting to try my luck in other places and other opportunities.  I was eventually conscripted into the army and was supposed to fight against the Pakistanis, when days before my graduation, I found this odd-looking cave that I was sure wasn't there years ago.  Curiousity got the better of me, and before I realized it I was falling down into a forest clearing, where men with long, pointy ears were pointing long swords as well as poison-tipped arrows at me.  And that's how I ended up here in your forests, your Honor" (my character appealing to an Elven Court, who only bothered to listen to him more out of curiousity than actually bothering with justice or what not).

So assuming he has 8 background points to distribute, he could easily have something like

• +2 Orphaned Himalayan Nomad
• +1 Bangladesh Street Urchin
• +2 Baker's Apprentice
• +3 Indian Army Conscript

Nov 21, 2012 -- 7:27AM, prowlersvn wrote:

People will argue the Use Rope skill, but nobody is arguing the Language skill

Actually, I've long argued against the Common language skill.  It's unrealistic.  Even in the fantasy worlds of D&D, the majority of people don't travel enough for a common language to have emerged.  Also, the presence of language translation magic that works perfectly acts as an inhibition to its development.  I can easily imagine a lot of casters making their living by travelling with merchants and nobles to act as translators.

However, all of that is beside the point.  The Use Rope Skill, as it has been defined by the books, is entirely too narrow to be a skill.  At the same time, it creates capabilities that make no sense.  A sailor often knows how to tie various knots for nautical purposes and may know how to splice rope back together.  However, sailors don't learn to rope steers, toss lassos, and hogtie people or hogs.

Virtually every use of Use Rope can be subjugated by other skills, and it can be done in a common-sense manner.  Survival gives you all your tent/camping rope use.  Climbing gives you all your ascent and descent uses.  Profession cowboy gives you all your lassos and hogtying.  If they want to print the skill, and then give a list of skills in Use Rope's description that detail how it can be made useless by other skills, that seems to satisfy us all.

Nov 22, 2012 -- 3:18PM, chaosfang wrote:

Nov 22, 2012 -- 2:26AM, faer4 wrote:

The fact that D&D Next's background system forces the player to restrict all his PC's potentially wonderful background details into four skills and one trait feels SEVERELY deflating for me if I was in that position, as it's a really bland way of handling skills.  Then again, maybe I simply find 13th Age's background/skill system to be so much better than most systems out there (4E included) that I find myself hard-pressed to change it in any way (other than in max values and available number of background points).

And 13th Age's system works how, exactly?

You highlight the details of your character's background, assign points to the background details, and then whenever you make a check, you add the most applicable background detail to your check.

So if you're an Amateur at Rope Tying and you give yourself +1 to that skill, it's like you give yourself the Use Rope skill but it's only +1 instead of a predetermined bonus and it only applies to rope tying.  If you're a World-Class Wrangling Cowboy and you give yourself +5 to that skill, it's like you give yourself the Use Rope skill but at +5 instead of a predetermined bonus and it applies to everything associated with wrangling (rope tying, lassoing) and interacting with cowboys and rodeo enthusiasts on top of that.  The only limitation would be that you have to coordinate with the DM so that come game time there aren't any misunderstandings.

EDIT: A more detailed character background would be something like "I was born in the Himalayas and grew up as a peace-loving nomad with my tribe, when a group of raiders caught us by surprise and I was left orphaned as my parents defended me from some of the brigands.  One day I got lost and ended up in the city of Bangladesh, where I learned the ways of civilization.  While I began my life there as a beggar, a kindly baker took me in and raised me as his own son, eventually becoming an apprentice in his bakeshop.  After awhile I decided that staying as a baker all my life wasn't enough, so I ran away, wanting to try my luck in other places and other opportunities.  I was eventually conscripted into the army and was supposed to fight against the Pakistanis, when days before my graduation, I found this odd-looking cave that I was sure wasn't there years ago.  Curiousity got the better of me, and before I realized it I was falling down into a forest clearing, where men with long, pointy ears were pointing long swords as well as poison-tipped arrows at me.  And that's how I ended up here in your forests, your Honor" (my character appealing to an Elven Court, who only bothered to listen to him more out of curiousity than actually bothering with justice or what not).

So assuming he has 8 background points to distribute, he could easily have something like

• +2 Orphaned Himalayan Nomad
• +1 Bangladesh Street Urchin
• +2 Baker's Apprentice
• +3 Indian Army Conscript

He could use his Orphaned Himalayan Nomad background for survival in the mountains and when speaking with nomadic tribes (assuming the language barrier can be breached), while his Bangladesh Street Urchin background could help not only in streetwise checks but also with stealing stuff from market stalls and maybe pickpocketing pedestrians as well (especially when working with other street urchins).  A baker's apprentice would certainly know how to work the stoves or at least in lifting all the heavy flour and other ingredients, so in addition to some rudimentary cooking-related checks he could definitely use that Baker's Apprentice background in several ways.  As an Indian Army Conscript, if ever he meets up with any Indians he'd likely be able to converse with them even if he's not fluent in the language, and as a result he might be able to get additional knowledge out of them that other strangers might not get, and he's likely to know about various weapons and fighting techniques and use them as a result (using said background for Acrobatics-like checks to maneuver around enemies during fights or what not).

I wonder what sort of background or skills would be applicable to said character, should this be presented on a D&D Next table...

So, like Fate's Aspect system, but shittier. **** that; it's fine in those sorts of games, but it's not DnD.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 12:48AM, faer4 wrote:

So, like Fate's Aspect system, but shittier. **** that; it's fine in those sorts of games, but it's not DnD.

Care to explain why, o great sage, having a skill system that works like Use Rope but is customizable to fit the needs of the player exactly "shittier" and "not DnD", when the exact details of Use Rope -- being either extremely limited or extremely overbearing depending on whose interpretation we're talking about -- works exactly the same way?

Nov 22, 2012 -- 4:35AM, Gustaveren wrote:

Well, fair enough, if the players wanted to use religion for such an attempt, but it would probably be a very timeconsuming ceremony and the religion DC would be really high, that is, the players would have to be very creative in obtaining bonuses
for instance

holy place could grant a ceremony: adventure needed to locate the ruin of a holy place there can be used for the ceremony burning on unique incense: another adventure in nature combined with profession herbalist or knowledge nature to locate the incense specific moon and star contellations: well, another adventure to figure out what would be the best time for the ceremonyand so forth

And all of a sudden you allow skills to replace spells which only highlights the problem with too broadly defined skills.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 1:48AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Nov 22, 2012 -- 4:35AM, Gustaveren wrote:

Well, fair enough, if the players wanted to use religion for such an attempt, but it would probably be a very timeconsuming ceremony and the religion DC would be really high, that is, the players would have to be very creative in obtaining bonuses
for instance

holy place could grant a ceremony: adventure needed to locate the ruin of a holy place there can be used for the ceremony burning on unique incense: another adventure in nature combined with profession herbalist or knowledge nature to locate the incense specific moon and star contellations: well, another adventure to figure out what would be the best time for the ceremonyand so forth

And all of a sudden you allow skills to replace spells which only highlights the problem with too broadly defined skills.

I do not see the problem, in fact would it create a long series of player wanted adventures lasting many campaign sessions in order to gain enough bonuses to have a realistic chance to succeed on the DC check i would apply

Basically, 4e was a failure since many gaming groups could not run the adventures they wanted to run if  they were using the 4e game mechanics

Nov 23, 2012 -- 1:52AM, Gustaveren wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 1:48AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Nov 22, 2012 -- 4:35AM, Gustaveren wrote:

Well, fair enough, if the players wanted to use religion for such an attempt, but it would probably be a very timeconsuming ceremony and the religion DC would be really high, that is, the players would have to be very creative in obtaining bonuses
for instance

holy place could grant a ceremony: adventure needed to locate the ruin of a holy place there can be used for the ceremony burning on unique incense: another adventure in nature combined with profession herbalist or knowledge nature to locate the incense specific moon and star contellations: well, another adventure to figure out what would be the best time for the ceremonyand so forth

And all of a sudden you allow skills to replace spells which only highlights the problem with too broadly defined skills.

I do not see the problem, in fact would it create a long series of player wanted adventures lasting many campaign sessions in order to gain enough bonuses to have a realistic chance to succeed on the DC check i would apply

Basically, 4e was a failure since many gaming groups could not run the adventures they wanted to run if  they were using the 4e game mechanics

It was a failure for you, because apparently what you're describing is exactly how I would run it in 4E, except Profession: Herbalist / Knowledge: Nature would be a Nature check.

Well, certain spells were usefull in the past for this kind of adventures but those skills do not exist in 4e
For instance the use of craft sculpture skill together with ritual adventures like those i described earlier in an attempt to modify the local properties of the shadowplane.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 12:58AM, chaosfang wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 12:48AM, faer4 wrote:

So, like Fate's Aspect system, but shittier. **** that; it's fine in those sorts of games, but it's not DnD.

Care to explain why, o great sage, having a skill system that works like Use Rope but is customizable to fit the needs of the player exactly "shittier" and "not DnD", when the exact details of Use Rope -- being either extremely limited or extremely overbearing depending on whose interpretation we're talking about -- works exactly the same way?

Oh, I meant that it was shittier than Fate's Aspect system, which similar but far superior. It's not appropriate at all for DnD, though; it's got narrativist baggage that doesn't really belong in DnD, which is much more simulationist/gamist. Simply put, a DnD character should be defined mechanically by selecting things from predesigned lists, rather than allowing the player to make things up.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 2:10AM, faer4 wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 12:58AM, chaosfang wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 12:48AM, faer4 wrote:

So, like Fate's Aspect system, but shittier. **** that; it's fine in those sorts of games, but it's not DnD.

Care to explain why, o great sage, having a skill system that works like Use Rope but is customizable to fit the needs of the player exactly "shittier" and "not DnD", when the exact details of Use Rope -- being either extremely limited or extremely overbearing depending on whose interpretation we're talking about -- works exactly the same way?

Oh, I meant that it was shittier than Fate's Aspect system, which similar but far superior. It's not appropriate at all for DnD, though; it's got narrativist baggage that doesn't really belong in DnD, which is much more simulationist/gamist. Simply put, a DnD character should be defined mechanically by selecting things from predesigned lists, rather than allowing the player to make things up.

1. Why is FATE's Aspect system "superior"?  EDIT: As far as I can tell from the Wikipedia entry on FATE, 13th Age's background system is exactly the same as FATE's Aspect system.

2. Why should a D&D character be defined mechanically by a predetermined list?

3. As far as I know, D&D was only simulationist/gamist in one edition (3.x), two if you count the non-weapon proficiencies of 2E (which some call 2.5E), how can you justify that D&D is more simulationist/gamist?

Nov 21, 2012 -- 7:15AM, wrecan wrote:

Tying someone up well can take skill.  But most other uses for knots do not require checks.  You either know how to tie a half-hitch or you don't.  You either know when a slipknot is appropriate or you don't.

Richard Dreyfus in Jaws.

There is definite skill (checks) involved in some seamanship knots. 

Nov 23, 2012 -- 2:18AM, chaosfang wrote:

1. Why is FATE's Aspect system "superior"?  EDIT: As far as I can tell from the Wikipedia entry on FATE, 13th Age's background system is exactly the same as FATE's Aspect system.

The Fate system has things like Compels, wherein an Aspect you have can be Compelled by the GM to make the story more interesting, in exchange for the GM giving you a Fate Point (with the player being able to resist by spending one), and Players can do so to NPCs by spending one. So, for instance, if your PC has an Aspect of "Gallant Knight", and the GM tells you that an innocent maiden's been kidnapped, he can Compel your Aspect to force you to go rescue her. It's a very narrativist mechanic overall, and not appropriate at all for DnD.

2. Why should a D&D character be defined mechanically by a predetermined list?

Because that's the way it's always been done, whenever it's been done at all.

3. As far as I know, D&D was only simulationist/gamist in one edition (3.x), two if you count the non-weapon proficiencies of 2E (which some call 2.5E), how can you justify that D&D is more simulationist/gamist?

DnD has always been Simulationist/Gamist, ever since they started creating monster ecologies and wandering monster tables, while retaining the core focus on the combat mechanic.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 2:35AM, faer4 wrote:

DnD has always been Simulationist/Gamist

Though Gygax stated D&D is not a simulation/simulator at all.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 2:42AM, Vic_Ferrari wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 2:35AM, faer4 wrote:

DnD has always been Simulationist/Gamist

Though Gygax stated D&D is not a simulation/simulator at all.

He meant that more as "this isn't hard-core realistic, stop bugging me" than anything else, to my understanding; DnD has always had simulationist mechanics. Hell, just look at the random prostitute table he himself wrote in the 1e DMG.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 2:46AM, faer4 wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 2:42AM, Vic_Ferrari wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 2:35AM, faer4 wrote:

DnD has always been Simulationist/Gamist

Though Gygax stated D&D is not a simulation/simulator at all.

He meant that more as "this isn't hard-core realistic, stop bugging me" than anything else, to my understanding; DnD has always had simulationist mechanics. Hell, just look at the random prostitute table he himself wrote in the 1e DMG.

But that doesn't simulate anthing, it's just a table to roll on. 

Now, virtual reality D&D harlots...there's a simulation.... 

Nov 23, 2012 -- 2:35AM, faer4 wrote:

The Fate system has things like Compels, wherein an Aspect you have can be Compelled by the GM to make the story more interesting, in exchange for the GM giving you a Fate Point (with the player being able to resist by spending one), and Players can do so to NPCs by spending one. So, for instance, if your PC has an Aspect of "Gallant Knight", and the GM tells you that an innocent maiden's been kidnapped, he can Compel your Aspect to force you to go rescue her. It's a very narrativist mechanic overall, and not appropriate at all for DnD.

So Fate's Aspect "system" is better because of a completely different "system" that allows the GM to railroad you into doing stuff?

Doesn't sound superior to me.  In fact, it sounds... well, using your words, shittier.

Besides, 13th Age already has that, but player-driven rather than GM-driven: Character Motivation.  Now an optional rule, because it usually ended up as unnecessary during earlier playtest, players had to explain why their characters were adventuring in the first place, which basically made a narrativist want to pursue anything that was related to their character's motivation, rendering GM-forced Compulsion unnecessary.

Plus, it gave the GM interesting plot hooks (on top of what the background, relationship dice and One Unique Thing already gave him).

Nov 23, 2012 -- 2:35AM, faer4 wrote:

2. Why should a D&D character be defined mechanically by a predetermined list?

Because that's the way it's always been done, whenever it's been done at all.

So defining a character outside of a predetermined list -- usually done by writing a character background -- was a badwrongfun way of playing D&D?

Nov 23, 2012 -- 2:35AM, faer4 wrote:

3. As far as I know, D&D was only simulationist/gamist in one edition (3.x), two if you count the non-weapon proficiencies of 2E (which some call 2.5E), how can you justify that D&D is more simulationist/gamist?

DnD has always been Simulationist/Gamist, ever since they started creating monster ecologies and wandering monster tables, while retaining the core focus on the combat mechanic.

Which was when exactly?

Last I checked, D&D has all three aspects of the GNS Theory.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 2:54AM, chaosfang wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 2:35AM, faer4 wrote:

The Fate system has things like Compels, wherein an Aspect you have can be Compelled by the GM to make the story more interesting, in exchange for the GM giving you a Fate Point (with the player being able to resist by spending one), and Players can do so to NPCs by spending one. So, for instance, if your PC has an Aspect of "Gallant Knight", and the GM tells you that an innocent maiden's been kidnapped, he can Compel your Aspect to force you to go rescue her. It's a very narrativist mechanic overall, and not appropriate at all for DnD.

So Fate's Aspect "system" is better because of a completely different "system" that allows the GM to railroad you into doing stuff?

Doesn't sound superior to me.  In fact, it sounds... well, using your words, shittier.

It's better because it offers rewards for making the story more interesting and acting in-character, producing a way to create characters with flaws and drawbacks that actually works, and it allows for PC creativity during a fight. So, for instance, a PC can give an NPC the "On Slippery Ground" Aspect by making an appropriate roll, and then Compel it to give the NPCs penalties to hit for the rest of the fight (or at least until they rid themselves of the Aspect).

Nov 23, 2012 -- 3:03AM, faer4 wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 2:54AM, chaosfang wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 2:35AM, faer4 wrote:

The Fate system has things like Compels, wherein an Aspect you have can be Compelled by the GM to make the story more interesting, in exchange for the GM giving you a Fate Point (with the player being able to resist by spending one), and Players can do so to NPCs by spending one. So, for instance, if your PC has an Aspect of "Gallant Knight", and the GM tells you that an innocent maiden's been kidnapped, he can Compel your Aspect to force you to go rescue her. It's a very narrativist mechanic overall, and not appropriate at all for DnD.

So Fate's Aspect "system" is better because of a completely different "system" that allows the GM to railroad you into doing stuff?

Doesn't sound superior to me.  In fact, it sounds... well, using your words, shittier.

It's better because it offers rewards for making the story more interesting and acting in-character, producing a way to create characters with flaws and drawbacks that actually works, and it allows for PC creativity during a fight. So, for instance, a PC can give an NPC the "On Slippery Ground" Aspect by making an appropriate roll, and then Compel it to give the NPCs penalties to hit for the rest of the fight (or at least until they rid themselves of the Aspect).

I fail to see how that couldn't work in 13th Age's background system, combined with improv and cooperation with the GM.  If someone wrote "+3 Ghastly Afraid of Spiders" as his background in 13th Age, I could easily see spider type opponents getting a +3 to attacks and defenses against the PC involved, in addition to automatically giving the PC the "Fear" condition that gives him -4 to hit (Dazed) and cannot benefit from the Escalation Die, making him effectively useless in the fight should he be forced by his friends to even try fighting what his character fears the most.  And if someone wanted to do something like douse the ground with oil -- effectively emulating the "On Slippery Ground" Aspect -- as the DM I could easily reward their efforts by applying the Dazed condition on enemies who fail their save against the slippery ground.  Other ways could be utilized using ability checks (with appropriate background bonuses if applicable), relationship dice, and the One Unique Thing.

The problem with Use Rope in 3.5 is that it was worse than useless. It's very existence got in the way of the game. Want to toss that grappling hook? Did you take use Rope? Well, you can't, you should have taken it. What do you mean that you sunk those points in Swim so you wouldn't drown in three inches of water? Well, them's the breaks. you either take Use Rope and sleep with the fishes, or you accept that you will never be able to propel a metalic object over a wall without the use of a wizard.

Now, the good news was that my group could ignore it... right up until someone started taking the the damned thing. At that point, the DM had to start telling people "No, you can't do that eminently reasonable task, because that would make Ropey McRopington with his twelve ranks feel like an idiot."

The fact that Use Rope existed made every character more incompetent. Somehow, although you're journeying through untamed wilderness in hostile landscapes while forced to hold and transport hundreds of pounds of provisions and equipment, your character never picks up the skill without sinking limited resources into it. It's a marvel that the poor fighter with his 2 + dump stat mod skill points per level could tie his plate armor on in the morning, seeing as he had to put all those points in Jump to negate the -6 armor check penalty.

Now, this is more a rant against 3.x's system. Something where you're only going to ever get a +2 to a check from a skill modifier isn't that bad, and you can have these narrow-use options without making characters failures at anything they don't specialize in. But if you get beyond that, just no.

You can use "use rope skill" as an untrained dex based skill and in many cases is it just a question of trying a number of times in order to succeed.
It is only if it is very difficult walls / cliff faces or situations with a lot of timed pressure were it is really critical you succeed on the first try

Nov 23, 2012 -- 4:02AM, Gustaveren wrote:

It is only if it is very difficult walls / cliff faces or situations with a lot of timed pressure were it is really critical you succeed on the first try

Which is where Ropey McRopington ruins everything. Never had to worry about tying ourselves to a pillar to avoid being sucked in that portal until he came along. Before, characters were competent.

But if Ropey McRopington gets a knife in his back, our rope smarts return!

It is not a game mechanic problem that your GM insist on high and not low DC's for that kind of rope use, but in general, the lack of a use rope skill would be a turn off for me regarding new rules

Nov 23, 2012 -- 4:15AM, Gustaveren wrote:

It is not a game mechanic problem that your GM insist on high and not low DC's for that kind of rope use, but in general, the lack of a use rope skill would be a turn off for me regarding new rules

Except that if the GM does not take into account the guy who has a high Use Rope skill, any situation where Use Rope comes into play would make it so easy for him it'd likely *bore* him.

That is a gaming style issue. An easy task will have a low DC in my campaigns, a difficult task will have a high DC no matter what skills the players have.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 4:42AM, Gustaveren wrote:

That is a gaming style issue. An easy task will have a low DC in my campaigns, a difficult task will have a high DC no matter what skills the players have.

It still doesn't stop the PC from rendering "high DC" as laughable, but this would result in a roundabout and futile debate anyway.  Let's just say that the way 3E's skill system -- and each edition of D&D in general -- is designed, it catered specifically to a certain style of play.

Faer - you said that creating a background through fates system isn't appropriate, but struggled to say why.   You said "we don't do that" which is exactly the attitude I hate.  If there's a newer better system, we can't ignore it just because "it isn't d&d".  You then started talking about gns, but I don't see how that's relevant.  It really sounded like you were arguing that simulationist means picking a background from a list and making that your list of skills, instead of writing a background, and then working with the dm to determine what skills are appropriate for that background.   I just don't think we can invoke gns any time we don't like a design choice. 

Choas - fate is unique, and has a great system.  I'd recommend playing it before deciding that 13th age can replicate it.   I'm not saying you can't get into certain similar circumstances (slippery floor) but the mechanics for getting there in fate are exciting and new.  I get that simulationists here would lose their minds if d&d introduced compels, but fate has a lot of good ideas that I'm sad d&d is ignoring.   In fact, I might start a thread about it.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 3:53AM, CrowScape wrote:

The problem with Use Rope in 3.5 is that it was worse than useless. It's very existence got in the way of the game. Want to toss that grappling hook? Did you take use Rope? Well, you can't, you should have taken it.

Sure you could.  It was an untrained skill and throwing the grappling hook 20 feet was a DC 14 check.  Pretty easy to make even with no ranks in the skill.

    

Nov 23, 2012 -- 5:45AM, MeCorva wrote:

Faer - you said that creating a background through fates system isn't appropriate, but struggled to say why. You said "we don't do that" which is exactly the attitude I hate. If there's a newer better system, we can't ignore it just because "it isn't d&d".

Yes, we can. The entire point of DnD Next is to create a distilled version of previous editions, but better. Bringing in mechanics from other systems is counter to that goal, especially when doing so shifts things towards Narrativism.

You then started talking about gns, but I don't see how that's relevant.

It's extremely relevant, because if you want to distill DnD, you can't alter its GNS status. That's one of the big reasons 4e failed; it abandoned the simulationist tendencies of previous editions to focus exclusively on the gamist side of things.

It really sounded like you were arguing that simulationist means picking a background from a list and making that your list of skills, instead of writing a background, and then working with the dm to determine what skills are appropriate for that background. I just don't think we can invoke gns any time we don't like a design choice.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. "Simulationist" means modelling specific things within the game world; "Narrativist" means using the game to structure a story. "I am a Badass Park Ranger" is Narrativist, because it's defining your role in the story. "I have a +3 on my Survival skill" is Simulationist, because it's defining what skills you have.

Nov 22, 2012 -- 9:27AM, Monsieur_Moustache wrote:

I see at least 3 conceptions of rpg skills here.

• General themed skills (or domains of competences) : You can do anything competently, provided the ability checks are related to the theme. A Survival skill following this system would allow to make sneak, forage, perception or track checks in natural surrounding, and only there. The urban counterpart would be streetwise. It's more realistic, but it assumes that you are invested equally in all aspects of the skill, even if everybody tend to favor some a little more than others. Overspecialization can be handled through feats or more specialized backgrounds (the actual skill system doesn't allow too specialized background as they have to offer at least four skills.
This system reduces drastically the skill number on a character sheet, but increases the size of their descriptions (and do not not necessarily reduce the number of skill choices, which is more a publication problem than else). Aquiring a skill becomes a huge evolution in the character's life. One or two skills are generally enough to cover all the classic abilities given to an archetype.

I want to highlight this idea here because I didn't read it until this morning and I didn't want it to be missed. I think this is an excellent compromise and I think it fits perfectly well with what they are trying to do with the 5e skills.

For a moment, let's completely ignore how skills were done in the past and start fresh. We know we want skills to be divorced from attributes (so we can call for attribute checks first and skill modifiers after) and the more each skill can apply to any of the attributes, the better this system is going to work. Using general themed skills gives us this system in as easy a way as possible. I would even be willing to accept proffessions as part of the skill list if this was case (borrowing some ideas from the 13th Age example that Chaosfang posted). I like this

Faer, we'll just have to agree to disagree - you're defense of keeping d&d at the level of "my character has a +3 on survival" reads like a parody of d&d fans, in my ears at least.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 5:45AM, MeCorva wrote:

Choas - fate is unique, and has a great system. I'd recommend playing it before deciding that 13th age can replicate it. I'm not saying you can't get into certain similar circumstances (slippery floor) but the mechanics for getting there in fate are exciting and new. I get that simulationists here would lose their minds if d&d introduced compels, but fate has a lot of good ideas that I'm sad d&d is ignoring. In fact, I might start a thread about it.

Actually...

www.enworld.org/forum/news/324950-13th-a...

13th Age is not a heartbreaker. All throughout the system, references to D&D abound - and so do references to FATE, Burning Wheel, 7th Sea, Ars Magica, Over the Edge, Feng Shui and the like. 13th Age draws upon this knowledge and casts an eye towards how D&D might serve its goal through alternate ends. It's so stuffed with great ideas it may as well be called "Every d20 Rule You Didn't Know You Always Wanted."

I've looked over the Fate 3.0 SRD, and the only difference between Aspect (FATE) and Background (13th Age) that I'm seeing is that Aspect is intricately tied to Fate points (which are also tied to Stunts), whereas Background is kinda like taking the D&D skills list from 3E & 4E, and then leaving it up to the players to decide what those skills are and what they do.

Like I said earlier, it's kinda like Use Rope's ambiguity, but better (IMHO).

I would say that by itself Aspect is nothing more than a nifty descriptor, but when you add Fate Points, Compulsions and Stunts into the mix makes for an excellent system.  I could say that Backgrounds are actually slightly better in the sense that it doesn't need Fate Points or Stunts to function, but when you take everything into consideration -- Aspects + Compulsions + Skills + Fate Points + Stunts vs. Backgrounds + Ability Scores + Spells/Maneuvers + Talents + Relationship Dice + Improvisation -- I'd say each system works quite well on the overall for what they were designed for, in the ways they were meant to be used.

I might consider porting Fate Points into 13th Age, but not in my current campaign.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 7:02AM, cheethorne wrote:

Nov 22, 2012 -- 9:27AM, Monsieur_Moustache wrote:

I see at least 3 conceptions of rpg skills here.

• General themed skills (or domains of competences) : You can do anything competently, provided the ability checks are related to the theme. A Survival skill following this system would allow to make sneak, forage, perception or track checks in natural surrounding, and only there. The urban counterpart would be streetwise. It's more realistic, but it assumes that you are invested equally in all aspects of the skill, even if everybody tend to favor some a little more than others. Overspecialization can be handled through feats or more specialized backgrounds (the actual skill system doesn't allow too specialized background as they have to offer at least four skills.
This system reduces drastically the skill number on a character sheet, but increases the size of their descriptions (and do not not necessarily reduce the number of skill choices, which is more a publication problem than else). Aquiring a skill becomes a huge evolution in the character's life. One or two skills are generally enough to cover all the classic abilities given to an archetype.

I want to highlight this idea here because I didn't read it until this morning and I didn't want it to be missed. I think this is an excellent compromise and I think it fits perfectly well with what they are trying to do with the 5e skills.

For a moment, let's completely ignore how skills were done in the past and start fresh. We know we want skills to be divorced from attributes (so we can call for attribute checks first and skill modifiers after) and the more each skill can apply to any of the attributes, the better this system is going to work. Using general themed skills gives us this system in as easy a way as possible. I would even be willing to accept proffessions as part of the skill list if this was case (borrowing some ideas from the 13th Age example that Chaosfang posted). I like this

Personally do I want to call for skill rolls, i do not want to call for ability rolls
I like complexity and details, that is, I do not like concept called general themed skills since it is basically the opposite of what i want

Nov 23, 2012 -- 9:40AM, Gustaveren wrote:

Personally do I want to call for skill rolls, i do not want to call for ability rolls
I like complexity and details, that is, I do not like concept called general themed skills since it is basically the opposite of what i want

I dunno; I do believe that it was in 2E and earlier that skill rolls were significantly different from ability rolls (in that the Thief in particular was rolling percentile dice for his skills).  In 3E and 4E, skill rolls were basically ability rolls with bonuses from your skills anyway, with 4E being less restrictive on skills than 3E.  So what's wrong with ability rolls?  Or is it just semantics on the matter?

Nov 23, 2012 -- 9:45AM, chaosfang wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 9:40AM, Gustaveren wrote:

Personally do I want to call for skill rolls, i do not want to call for ability rolls
I like complexity and details, that is, I do not like concept called general themed skills since it is basically the opposite of what i want

I dunno; I do believe that it was in 2E and earlier that skill rolls were significantly different from ability rolls (in that the Thief in particular was rolling percentile dice for his skills).  In 3E and 4E, skill rolls were basically ability rolls with bonuses from your skills anyway, with 4E being less restrictive on skills than 3E.  So what's wrong with ability rolls?  Or is it just semantics on the matter?

1) well, Habit, it has become natural to say "make a move silently roll" instead of saying "make a dex roll"
2) I want high level characters skill rolls to be more than just ability + a low number since there are certain skills were i want people to have invested a lot in order to become good enough to have a chance for succeeding difficult tasks. Well, it is a life philosphy issue. I believe a person need to invest lots of time and effort become skilled in an area. New generations seem to believe that knowledge does not matter as long as they know how they can google it on the internet.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 4:42AM, Gustaveren wrote:

That is a gaming style issue. An easy task will have a low DC in my campaigns, a difficult task will have a high DC no matter what skills the players have.

But now you have high Use Rope DCs, instead of high Acrobatics or high Thievery.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 6:46AM, Maxperson wrote:

Sure you could.  It was an untrained skill and throwing the grappling hook 20 feet was a DC 14 check.  Pretty easy to make even with no ranks in the skill.   

And D&D is known for having worlds with strict building regulations enforced by the gods themselves: Thou shalt not build walls taller than 20 feet.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 12:16PM, CrowScape wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 4:42AM, Gustaveren wrote:

That is a gaming style issue. An easy task will have a low DC in my campaigns, a difficult task will have a high DC no matter what skills the players have.

But now you have high Use Rope DCs, instead of high Acrobatics or high Thievery.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 6:46AM, Maxperson wrote:

Sure you could.  It was an untrained skill and throwing the grappling hook 20 feet was a DC 14 check.  Pretty easy to make even with no ranks in the skill.   

And D&D is known for having worlds with strict building regulations enforced by the gods themselves: Thou shalt not build walls taller than 20 feet.

It goes up by +2 for each 10 feet after that.  Max DC is 20 for 50 feet.  It's virtually impossible to fail if you have time to keep trying.  It would take the entire party having no ranks in rope use AND a dex of 9 or less.  To fail at 40 feet and under, the entire party would have to have a dex of 4 or less.

Thou shalt not attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of thy fellow forum goers

Chaos - thanks for the link.  I can see why 13th age is popular around here.  Good to know there's an option if DDN is too retro for me. 

As you say, it's the fate points, the stunts, the compels that all work together to make the system work.   If you were to remove fate points, your description of 13ty age backgrounds and fate backgrounds appear to bethe same.  I was more trying to warn you that fate points are a new mechanic, not captured by anything in DDN or in your description of 13th age.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 9:51AM, Gustaveren wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 9:45AM, chaosfang wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 9:40AM, Gustaveren wrote:

Personally do I want to call for skill rolls, i do not want to call for ability rolls
I like complexity and details, that is, I do not like concept called general themed skills since it is basically the opposite of what i want

I dunno; I do believe that it was in 2E and earlier that skill rolls were significantly different from ability rolls (in that the Thief in particular was rolling percentile dice for his skills).  In 3E and 4E, skill rolls were basically ability rolls with bonuses from your skills anyway, with 4E being less restrictive on skills than 3E.  So what's wrong with ability rolls?  Or is it just semantics on the matter?

1) well, Habit, it has become natural to say "make a move silently roll" instead of saying "make a dex roll"
2) I want high level characters skill rolls to be more than just ability + a low number since there are certain skills were i want people to have invested a lot in order to become good enough to have a chance for succeeding difficult tasks. Well, it is a life philosphy issue. I believe a person need to invest lots of time and effort become skilled in an area. New generations seem to believe that knowledge does not matter as long as they know how they can google it on the internet.

1.) Funny, I easily picked up "make a Dexterity check to move quietly" no problem.
2.) I believe that investing a lot of time and effort = levels, so 4E's and 13th Age's level-granted bonus to ability/skill checks made perfect sense, although I do believe it's a simple enough houserule for both systems to say "For every (two) level(s) that you don't use your [skills/backgrounds], you gain a -1 to checks related to that [skill/background].  This is to represent how you haven't been practicing your skills in the given areas."  It's equally simple to simply state "no you don't get that [skill/background] bonus to the check, because it's been so long since you actually used it."  

Personally, I'd just keep it as is, as I assume that they get to use the other skills all the time during the characters' down time, when we are not actively in session, as I wouldn't want to bother tracking how your character spends their off time improving his Knowledge: Farmhand, Use Rope or what not.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 12:55PM, Maxperson wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 12:16PM, CrowScape wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 4:42AM, Gustaveren wrote:

That is a gaming style issue. An easy task will have a low DC in my campaigns, a difficult task will have a high DC no matter what skills the players have.

 
But now you have high Use Rope DCs, instead of high Acrobatics or high Thievery.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 6:46AM, Maxperson wrote:

Sure you could.  It was an untrained skill and throwing the grappling hook 20 feet was a DC 14 check.  Pretty easy to make even with no ranks in the skill.   

 
And D&D is known for having worlds with strict building regulations enforced by the gods themselves: Thou shalt not build walls taller than 20 feet.

 

It goes up by +2 for each attempt after that.  Max DC is 20 for 50 feet.  It's virtually impossible to fail if you have time to keep trying.  It would take the entire party having no ranks in rope use AND a dex of 9 or less.  To fail at 40 feet and under, the entire party would have to have a dex of 4 or less.

Thou shalt not attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of thy fellow forum goers

Here's my issue about that: if it is virtually impossible to fail unless in the most haphazard of situations, either the DM will always at least try to incorporate those haphazard situations or you waste time rolling for checks that's bound to succeed anyway.

What I like about 13th Age's background vs. D&D Next's background is that even though both function virtually the same as it stands -- they both are bonuses to ability checks -- D&D Next's background system is basically "pick four skills and a trait that connects you to the world; you get +3 on checks related to your selected skills".  Meanwhile, 13th Age's background is basically "describe your character background -- the more detailed the better -- and then assign points to each aspect of your background; you get a bonus to checks related to your background equal to the amount you've given to each background".

Particularly detailed backgrounds in 13th Age, when working with the DM, can provide him with NPCs or even entire organizations that he can use for his campaign... and when combined with the Icons + Relationship Dice (which connects your character to the major organizations of a campaign, or even the icons of those major organizations, and determines how close or distant you are to them in a way that's not-too-different from alignment) it, for me, becomes a much more interesting avenue for character creation than just 4 skills + a trait.  While I understand that D&D Next's background can do the same, it isn't the default option; the default option is "pick a background and go, if the DM decides that backgrounds are in his game at all".  Not very exciting if you ask me.

Honestly, for me the only thing that makes D&D Next's background interesting is the "trait" portion.  I already have "predetermined bonus to a check" in 4E, but at least in 4E there was a specific clause wherein the DM is encouraged to give you bonuses when specific details related to your background come up.  Here the DM is actually discouraged to grant bonuses based on your trait (the actual phrase is "Traits never improve your character’s class abilities or provide numerical bonuses on checks, saves, and so forth", but I'm pretty sure a lot of DMs will ignore that).

Nov 23, 2012 -- 1:45PM, chaosfang wrote:

Here's my issue about that: if it is virtually impossible to fail unless in the most haphazard of situations, either the DM will always at least try to incorporate those haphazard situations or you waste time rolling for checks that's bound to succeed anyway.

I usually won't have them roll unless the situation just happens to be hazerdous.  I'm not going to waste anyones time rolling for something that's an auto-success.  I was simply pointing out that by RAW, you didn't need rope use to use a grapple to climb with.

What I like about 13th Age's background vs. D&D Next's background is that even though both function virtually the same as it stands -- they both are bonuses to ability checks -- D&D Next's background system is basically "pick four skills and a trait that connects you to the world; you get +3 on checks related to your selected skills".  Meanwhile, 13th Age's background is basically "describe your character background -- the more detailed the better -- and then assign points to each aspect of your background; you get a bonus to checks related to your background equal to the amount you've given to each background".

I would have to look at 13th Age (which I have no interest in doing) in order to comment here  

Particularly detailed backgrounds in 13th Age, when working with the DM, can provide him with NPCs or even entire organizations that he can use for his campaign... and when combined with the Icons + Relationship Dice (which connects your character to the major organizations of a campaign, or even the icons of those major organizations, and determines how close or distant you are to them in a way that's not-too-different from alignment) it, for me, becomes a much more interesting avenue for character creation than just 4 skills + a trait.

It sounds like 13th Age rewards creative players, giving them an advantage over players with less creativity.  Or am I not understanding what you are trying to say. 

Nov 23, 2012 -- 1:17PM, MeCorva wrote:

Chaos - thanks for the link. I can see why 13th age is popular around here. Good to know there's an option if DDN is too retro for me. As you say, it's the fate points, the stunts, the compels that all work together to make the system work. If you were to remove fate points, your description of 13ty age backgrounds and fate backgrounds appear to bethe same. I was more trying to warn you that fate points are a new mechanic, not captured by anything in DDN or in your description of 13th age.

Thanks.  I actually think that Fate Points sorta resemble Eberron's Action Point system (when combined with what prestige classes etc. can do with them), but are more universal in use, and more intricately tied with other mechanics to provide some very interesting dynamics.

And as 13th Age backgrounds are basically FATE Aspects but with inherent bonuses (as opposed to having to spend a Fate Point just to improve your check by 1), I see no reason why they wouldn't be compatible with each other.  In fact, it has been mentioned several times over various threads in different forums that if you don't like 13th Age itself, you could always just buy the books to get stuff you could easily houserule in if you want.

Modularity done right, if you ask me. 

Nov 23, 2012 -- 1:53PM, Maxperson wrote:

I usually won't have them roll unless the situation just happens to be hazerdous.  I'm not going to waste anyones time rolling for something that's an auto-success.  I was simply pointing out that by RAW, you didn't need rope use to use a grapple to climb with.

And that's the thing with Use Rope I think: it was so situational in actual use even when assuming it is has broader uses than implied that it makes me question if it wasn't intentionally designed as a trap skill.  You know, given how one of the authors of the edition that spawned Use Rope admitted to intentionally creating trap options because of a particular love for system mastery.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 1:53PM, Maxperson wrote:

It sounds like 13th Age rewards creative players, giving them an advantage over players with less creativity.  Or am I not understanding what you are trying to say. 

If the players with less creativity refuse to work with the DM, I'd say yes the more creative players would have an advantage here.  However, the DM in 13th Age is supposed to work with his players, actively goading and re-goading his less creative players to think, think, think! -- see www.pelgranepress.com/?p=9061 -- until they get detailed enough.

Relevant text in the link, see bolded part:

After we chose pre-generated character sheets with significant areas left blabk, Rob asked us to spend our points. for backgrounds and icon relationships. He then had us pick our One Unique Things. In every case he pushed us to flesh them out more, and told us how he as a GM would take advantage of the opportunities they presented to make life interesting for our characters in a campaign.

So if you just write +4 Thief as your background, I'd likely ask you "what sort of thief where you?  were you a member of a thieves' guild?  did you specialize in a specific type of job, like being an enforcer or a pickpocket or a graverobber?  did you have any particular friends or enemies?" etc. etc. etc. until you end up with a much more detailed character than "Thief".

If you the player refused to answer any of my question as DM, how can I incorporate your background and your character into the campaign in a way that would make things interesting for everyone on the table?  Sure it'd be sufficient in terms of "pick pocket", "move silently", "hide", and other thief-related stuff, but it'd be flat if you ask me.

If you wrote +4 House Job Soloist instead, that'd certainly help you when it comes to particular details of your craft -- like allowing you the ability to know where it's best to enter a house, and perhaps even getting a "gut feeling" ability to know when it's ideal to break into a house -- and it'd grant me an opportunity to think stuff like "since he's a soloist who breaks into houses, I'm sure that local thieves' guilds would want to have a word with him, either to make sure he doesn't move around without them knowing, or perhaps to even have him do a task that requires his freedom from guild rules and guild association... perhaps something like stealing a very important artifact for them."

Between +4 Thief and +4 House Job Soloist, who do you think I'd more likely be better equipped with making an interesting story about?

- - - - -
Now, I do realize that Relationship Dice and One Unique Thing help cover weaknesses from a bland background -- One Unique Thing in particular sort of coerces you into being creative, since anything you put there would automatically be available to your character only (all humanoid NPCs and PCs, and even some of the non-humanoid NPCs, cannot have what you have as your One Unique Thing) -- but as backgrounds are what you use most often, the lack of a "cool" background is going to hit your play quite hard.

The key thing -- and the thing I love about most -- in 13th Age is that it's a bit of a cooperative, rulings-centric system: players and DMs have to work together in the system, as the system is about them and for them.

And like I said, it's often been mentioned that if you don't like the system itself, you're encouraged to mine it for possible houserules.

Well, i have played several characters with use rope skill and i had lots of fun doing it, but when i placed some ranks in it did i have strategies for what i wanted to use it for

Nov 23, 2012 -- 3:30PM, Gustaveren wrote:

Well, i have played several characters with use rope skill and i had lots of fun doing it, but when i placed some ranks in it did i have strategies for what i wanted to use it for

The question is, how many DMs were receptive to creating scenarios where Use Rope was actually useful?  Plus, how often did you actually *use* Use Rope if/when those scenarios actually did come up?

And most of all, what are the limitations of "manipulate or tie rope or similar material", as written in D&D Next's version of said skill?  Because I haven't seen anyone react to the question of "I manipulate rope in such a way that it would hypnotize a person into doing my bidding, yes?" even though it, or a variation of it, has been posted several times on this thread already.

I created my own chances for using the use rope skill, for instance,
1) trying to use a lasso to capture someone in order for us to interrogate that person for extra information instead of just trying to kill that person
2) aiding different kind of climbing, i still remember when i failed a climbing roll, but then used use rope to save the situation by making some high risk emergency rope swining but the point is, it was basically an extra roll to save myself from a bad situation
3) using a lasso to capture different animals, well wild horses ....
4) Trying to obtain extra clues during the resolution of a mystery by looking at some rope and trying to identify the area it had been manufactured in
and so forth

I newer expected the GM to make adventures tailored to my skills. I was just looking for opportunities to use my skills and i had considered different strategies for using the skill

well, one of those campaigns were a low level campaign were i was some kind of wizard-rogue
The other players began to call me the lasso-wizard since i usually managed to use my lasso during every encounter in order to make sure we managed to capture at least one enemy there could be interrogated after the encounter.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 4:04PM, Gustaveren wrote:

I created my own chances for using the use rope skill

....

I newer expected the GM to make adventures tailored to my skills. I was just looking for opportunities to use my skills and i had considered different strategies for using the skill

Which any creative player can do with any ability and skill in any edition of D&D.

Still waiting for the answer on hypnotism via Use Rope though.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 4:17PM, chaosfang wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 4:04PM, Gustaveren wrote:

I created my own chances for using the use rope skill

....

I newer expected the GM to make adventures tailored to my skills. I was just looking for opportunities to use my skills and i had considered different strategies for using the skill

Which any creative player can do with any ability and skill in any edition of D&D.

Still waiting for the answer on hypnotism via Use Rope though.

That directed at me? If I was GMing? Sure. Charisma + Use Rope, same DC as any other Charisma check to extract information or compliance from them. The entire point is to encourage player creativity, after all.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 5:56PM, faer4 wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 4:17PM, chaosfang wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 4:04PM, Gustaveren wrote:

I created my own chances for using the use rope skill

....

I newer expected the GM to make adventures tailored to my skills. I was just looking for opportunities to use my skills and i had considered different strategies for using the skill

Which any creative player can do with any ability and skill in any edition of D&D.

Still waiting for the answer on hypnotism via Use Rope though.

That directed at me? If I was GMing? Sure. Charisma + Use Rope, same DC as any other Charisma check to extract information or compliance from them. The entire point is to encourage player creativity, after all.

Not information or compliance, although that might work.  More of "domination" effect, to command my foes to attack someone, like how hypnotism worked in one of them old movies.

So basically you don't mind allowing Use Rope to emulate magical effects, as long as it's done in the context of "manipulating rope or similar material"?

Nov 23, 2012 -- 6:06PM, chaosfang wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 5:56PM, faer4 wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 4:17PM, chaosfang wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 4:04PM, Gustaveren wrote:

I created my own chances for using the use rope skill

....

I newer expected the GM to make adventures tailored to my skills. I was just looking for opportunities to use my skills and i had considered different strategies for using the skill

Which any creative player can do with any ability and skill in any edition of D&D.

Still waiting for the answer on hypnotism via Use Rope though.

That directed at me? If I was GMing? Sure. Charisma + Use Rope, same DC as any other Charisma check to extract information or compliance from them. The entire point is to encourage player creativity, after all.

Not information or compliance, although that might work.  More of "domination" effect, to command my foes to attack someone, like how hypnotism worked in one of them old movies.

So basically you don't mind allowing Use Rope to emulate magical effects, as long as it's done in the context of "manipulating rope or similar material"?

No more so than any other skill, or what could be accomplished with a straight Charisma check. Flat-up Domination is definitely out of the picture, though allowing them to hypnotise a guard to get through instead of making a Charisma + Bluff check to lie to him would be perfectly fine.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 7:55PM, faer4 wrote:

No more so than any other skill, or what could be accomplished with a straight Charisma check. Flat-up Domination is definitely out of the picture, though allowing them to hypnotise a guard to get through instead of making a Charisma + Bluff check to lie to him would be perfectly fine.

So a DEX INT Wizard that manipulates a Rope as a whip, does that allow me to bypass my +2 to hit and instead get +3 to hit since I'm manipulating a rope or a similar material?

Nov 23, 2012 -- 10:34PM, chaosfang wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 7:55PM, faer4 wrote:

No more so than any other skill, or what could be accomplished with a straight Charisma check. Flat-up Domination is definitely out of the picture, though allowing them to hypnotise a guard to get through instead of making a Charisma + Bluff check to lie to him would be perfectly fine.

So a DEX INT Wizard that manipulates a Rope as a whip, does that allow me to bypass my +2 to hit and instead get +3 to hit since I'm manipulating a rope or a similar material?

Of course not. That's not a skill use, that's an attack.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 10:45PM, faer4 wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 10:34PM, chaosfang wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 7:55PM, faer4 wrote:

No more so than any other skill, or what could be accomplished with a straight Charisma check. Flat-up Domination is definitely out of the picture, though allowing them to hypnotise a guard to get through instead of making a Charisma + Bluff check to lie to him would be perfectly fine.

So a DEX INT Wizard that manipulates a Rope as a whip, does that allow me to bypass my +2 to hit and instead get +3 to hit since I'm manipulating a rope or a similar material?

Of course not. That's not a skill use, that's an attack.

But it'd have to be a skill use if I'm using it to entangle an opponent's legs with it, yes?

Nov 23, 2012 -- 10:49PM, chaosfang wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 10:45PM, faer4 wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 10:34PM, chaosfang wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 7:55PM, faer4 wrote:

No more so than any other skill, or what could be accomplished with a straight Charisma check. Flat-up Domination is definitely out of the picture, though allowing them to hypnotise a guard to get through instead of making a Charisma + Bluff check to lie to him would be perfectly fine.

So a DEX INT Wizard that manipulates a Rope as a whip, does that allow me to bypass my +2 to hit and instead get +3 to hit since I'm manipulating a rope or a similar material?

Of course not. That's not a skill use, that's an attack.

But it'd have to be a skill use if I'm using it to entangle an opponent's legs with it, yes?

We don't have any rules for tripping yet, but I'm pretty sure they'll still just be attacks.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 10:52PM, faer4 wrote:

We don't have any rules for tripping yet, but I'm pretty sure they'll still just be attacks.

But using Use Rope to set up a trap that causes the enemy to trip is not going to make an attack?

Nov 23, 2012 -- 11:01PM, chaosfang wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 10:52PM, faer4 wrote:

We don't have any rules for tripping yet, but I'm pretty sure they'll still just be attacks.

But using Use Rope to set up a trap that causes the enemy to trip is not going to make an attack?

What, you mean setting it up beforehand? At best, you'd create a rope trap to make an attack in its own right. I'd want firm rules before I allowed a player to do it, though, for fear of unbalancing the combat engine.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 11:12PM, faer4 wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 11:01PM, chaosfang wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 10:52PM, faer4 wrote:

We don't have any rules for tripping yet, but I'm pretty sure they'll still just be attacks.

But using Use Rope to set up a trap that causes the enemy to trip is not going to make an attack?

What, you mean setting it up beforehand? At best, you'd create a rope trap to make an attack in its own right. I'd want firm rules before I allowed a player to do it, though, for fear of unbalancing the combat engine.

Well let's see... in Shrek 2 they certainly seemed to use either Use Rope or Acrobatics in order to tie the dragon up.

And here's the thing: as it stands, there are no firm rules with Use Rope, which already overlaps with various skills as it stands.  I could argue about utilizing various combos using various skills and ability checks that don't involve attacks, yet emulate them somewhow.  We could go at it all day, and still it's not necessarily going to end well, if at all.

We haven't even begun with the fact that in D&D Next, monster levels are currently useless, which means that theoretically I can hypnotize Vecna into giving up even just ONE secret using Use Rope.  At level 1.  As a Skill Specialist Rogue with Skill Mastery.  Unless the DM has to introduce Vecna with an obscene amount of Wisdom just to ensure that Vecna avoids being hypnotized, assuming that's how the DM would resolve hypnotism in the first place.

Does Use Rope deserve to be a skill?  Perhaps, especially since D&D Next's devs have decided to go the "ability check + argue that your skill should apply" route, which is similar to 13th Age's "ability check + argue that your background should apply" route, which means even Knowledge checks would be far more useful than before, when they were JUST Intelligence checks.

Between D&D Next and 13th Age though, I still say 13th Age's background is better than D&D Next's background.  Compared to FATE's aspect + fate point + stunt system however, both can be considered inferior.  But we're not talking about FATE anyway, and the only reason why 13th Age was even brought up would be because A) both D&D Next's skills and 13th Age's backgrounds are functionally the same, even though 13th Age is more customizable and does allow the player to have a similar exchange as what we had for Use Rope, and B) 13th Age is said to be a "love letter to D&D"; not meant to be a D&D clone, but not necessarily deviating so much from D&D that its roots wouldn't be recognizable.  So the comparing of both systems is almost always unavoidable.

Huff puff puff. People just going back and forth :P You can make any skill you want so if you want use rope, do it. Also, with how skills work in this edition, skills WILL overlap in certain areas. Every skill imaginable deserves to be a skill as long as it's reasonable :P No catch all skills I mean.

Nov 24, 2012 -- 12:48AM, Jenks wrote:

Huff puff puff. People just going back and forth :P You can make any skill you want so if you want use rope, do it. Also, with how skills work in this edition, skills WILL overlap in certain areas. Every skill imaginable deserves to be a skill as long as it's reasonable :P No catch all skills I mean.

If that is the case, why not give the players the ability to create your own skills?  You know, like how FATE and 13th Age do it?

My group is playing D&D 4th Ed. right now and we constantly need the Use Rope skill. It's strange that they got rid of it, especially when they included no rules on how to manage tying up others, which happens a lot when you're playing a game in which you do more than just kill.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 11:13PM, cherkes wrote:

My group is playing D&D 4th Ed. right now and we constantly need the Use Rope skill. It's strange that they got rid of it, especially when they included no rules on how to manage tying up others, which happens a lot when you're playing a game in which you do more than just kill.

Why do you need a use rope skill?

Feb 2, 2013 -- 11:13PM, cherkes wrote:

My group is playing D&D 4th Ed. right now and we constantly need the Use Rope skill. It's strange that they got rid of it

They didn't get rid of it.

Burst rope bonds	21
Burst iron chains	28
Burst adamantine chains	35

Published in Dungeon Master's Guide, page 64, Rules Compendium, page 175.

IMPROVISING WITH THIEVERY

        Fix a broken wagon (easy DC)
        Craft a standard lock (moderate DC)
        Bind a creature with rope (check result sets escape DC)
Published in Player's Handbook, page(s) 188, Rules Compendium, page 155.

when people mock certain non weapon proficiencies it makes me mad and sad for the game when things like ettiqute and rope use may seem trivial the system worked for older editions and while narrower skill listing may be ok for some. being able to specialize is a good thing as well. so rope use is totaly silly and is to be mocked but these players are from a generation that things like magic item markets where people can buy and sell them which would not only totaly destablize an economy by making everything but magic items near not worth selling as a shop keep would want to make maximum profits possible. but i guess an unstable monty haul end is ok as long as you cant get a use rope skill.

Feb 3, 2013 -- 4:52PM, justmike1976 wrote:

when things like ettiqute and rope use may seem trivial the system worked for older editions

So did Thac0, the 2e saving throw list, and non-weapon proficiencies. That doesn't mean these were good systems.

and while narrower skill listing may be ok for some. being able to specialize is a good thing as well.

The problem with a skill list too broad is that it doesn't allow specialization. The problem with a skill list too specific is that you need to be trained in more things to be competent. There is a happy medium, and where that medium is can be different from one person to the next.

so rope use is totaly silly and is to be mocked but these players are from a generation that things like magic item markets where people can buy and sell them which would not only totaly destablize an economy by making everything but magic items near not worth selling as a shop keep would want to make maximum profits possible. but i guess an unstable monty haul end is ok as long as you cant get a use rope skill.

Holy ridiculous and grandoise generalizations, batman. I could say a lot to this, but I will settle with the following:

What a player or group perfers in skill lists does not equate well at all to what that player or group prefers in magic items, their aquisition, or how they are used in the game.

Are you saying that "this generation of players" are all "Just them kids that need to get off my lawn and stop playing D&D unless it's the way we played it back in the day"? Because that is certainly how you sound. There are plenty of players from "this generation" that enjoy Dark Sun - which is entirely against having magic items everywhere. There are plenty of players from "this generation" that enjoy no-or-low magic item campaigns. There are plenty that enjoy the Magi-tech sort of magic and magic items you see in Eberron. This is neither bad nor good, simply different from the way "your generation" played (which is in itself false - "monty haul" sort of campaigns have been around since the earliest years).

the rediculous part of this argument is that you think because wotc took something out of the game its  because it didnt work ask anyone who dislikes the changes from 3.5 to 4 about that and they will be in my corner.

Feb 3, 2013 -- 5:20PM, justmike1976 wrote:

the rediculous part of this argument is that you think because wotc took something out of the game its  because it didnt work ask anyone who dislikes the changes from 3.5 to 4 about that and they will be in my corner.

This would imply that you think that Thac0, the 2e saving throws, and NWPs actually are good mechanics that deserved to stick around.

there is nothing wrong with a non weapon proficiency system or saving throw you have them in 3rd edition they just chaned the mechanic. but saving throws made sense casters had more resistance to magical abilities working with magic and fighters had more physical toughness to resist physical effects it worked for over 15 years and wasnt even on the list of complaints when they were desiging 3rd edition

Feb 3, 2013 -- 5:28PM, justmike1976 wrote:

there is nothing wrong with a non weapon proficiency system or saving throw you have them in 3rd edition they just chaned the mechanic. but saving throws made sense casters had more resistance to magical abilities working with magic and fighters had more physical toughness to resist physical effects it worked for over 15 years and wasnt even on the list of complaints when they were desiging 3rd edition

Insert raucous laughter here. This is as hopeless as it is hilarious.

you can call it hopeless all you want there are some that want those things or versions of those things as modules as add on rules. if not then i will play what i have been playing and just use all the material that is still being produced for 1st and 2nd editon every day as will each person who plays pathfinder

If forgotten realms is the default setting for DDN then use rope should not be included. After all, Elmininster is the exemplar Realms character, and as has been said before "Elmaninster don't neeeeed no stinking rope!"

Rope Use is one of the skills that made me realize the game has become too rules heavy.

We also need a "Use Teeth" skill, then.

With teeth, you can cut ropes or fingers, bite babies to impress people, to take the top off of small bottles of beer, use them as an improvised percussion intrument or improvised missile weapons.

This is why I prefer an open skill system, with many possible skills and an assumption of overlap.

The core of all checks should be the relevant ability. Then a bonus for skill training should be added if the skill is deemed relevant by the DM (this does introduce some mother-may-I into the skill system, but I think the flexibility is worth it in this case). In this system a Use Rope skill could survive, and would represent a character's great familiarity with ropes. It would be added to strength checks when climbing ropes, dexterity checks when tying ropes, and charisma checks when talking about ropes. It is still a little bit silly, but if a group doesn't like it, it is easy to ignore, because many of its uses would be covered by overlapping skills like climb, or outdoorsman (for instance when setting up camp).

Feb 4, 2013 -- 10:50AM, Authw8 wrote:

This is why I prefer an open skill system, with many possible skills and an assumption of overlap.

The problem with this system is that skill lists already do this.

With a skill list: Are you trained in this ability? If so, roll a d20, add your ability modifier, and add a bonus for being trained in this skill. If not, roll a d20, add your ability modifier only.

With an "open" list: Are you familiar with this skill? If so, roll a d20, add your ability modifier, and add a bonus for being familiar with this skill. If not, roll a d20, add your ability modifier only.

A skill system, ideally, would be vague enough to not require taking 20 skills just to be decently competent as an adventurer, but be specific enough that it rewards specialization. An "open" list basically relies upon the DM/player to decide if the chosen skills by the party are closer to the former or the latter or a happy medium. It basically puts the burden of that aspect of game design upon the playing group (or in another light, it also allows every group to personally customize their virtual skill lists on a per-campaign or even per-character basis).

A great way of mediating this "need to find the happy medium" is letting skills cover other things with a different attribute modifier. Religion check? Wisdom to perform the ritual in such a way that you get the most benifit; Intelligence to remember if haze demons are vulnerable to fire or electricity; Charisma to bring together a group in prayer to the gods to encourage them. It allows more flex, while still encouraging specialization (and keeps an adequate focus on attributes).

In my perfect world, the skill list for DDN would be a list with 3 columns. In the first column, you have the most basic, fundamental tied-together skills - maybe only 3 skills per (ideal) attribute. In the second column, it breaks these skills down some, and the list is longer. In the third column, it breaks each of these skills down even further, for people who want a lot of specific specialization. The third could possibly include a "synergy" system where training in one grants you a bonus on other skills. Each column would list how many skills you get to choose from; basically it would be 3 seperate skill lists, and for your campaign you choose one - the most basic, the medium, and the most complex/detailed.

So "Physical Prowess" would break down into "Athletics" and "Acrobatics". Each of these would break down into things like Jump, Climb, Swim, Tumble, etc.

In going up or down complexity level, you still have a common "tree" in which to roll, so there wouldn't be any great confusion. Rolling for "Physical Prowess" would be the same as rolling for "Athletics" would be the same for rolling for "Jump" realistically speaking.

Of course, the attribute you roll with these skills would be variable in all cases.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 11:16AM, blacksheepcannibal wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 10:50AM, Authw8 wrote:

This is why I prefer an open skill system, with many possible skills and an assumption of overlap.

 
A skill system, ideally, would be vague enough to not require taking 20 skills just to be decently competent as an adventurer, but be specific enough that it rewards specialization. An "open" list basically relies upon the DM/player to decide if the chosen skills by the party are closer to the former or the latter or a happy medium. It basically puts the burden of that aspect of game design upon the playing group (or in another light, it also allows every group to personally customize their virtual skill lists on a per-campaign or even per-character basis).

A great way of mediating this "need to find the happy medium" is letting skills cover other things with a different attribute modifier. Religion check? Wisdom to perform the ritual in such a way that you get the most benifit; Intelligence to remember if haze demons are vulnerable to fire or electricity; Charisma to bring together a group in prayer to the gods to encourage them. It allows more flex, while still encouraging specialization (and keeps an adequate focus on attributes).

My whole point is that an open, overlapping skill system allows you to have your cake and eat it too. You can have lots of skills without having to cut the skill pie into smaller and smaller pieces.

I'm arguing to move away from a system in which anything you attempt that requires a roll is a skill check. Instead, everything is an ability check. It is then up to the DM and player(s) to decide if one of the skills a character possesses is relevant to the task at hand.

The same exact activity, then, could be modified by all sorts of different skills. Imagine the activity of putting together a campsite on a windy mountain. Someone with a wilderness skill could claim a bonus for his wilderness experience. Someone with climb could claim a bonus because they're good at maneuvering the steep rocky parts of the mountainside. Someone with use rope could claim a bonus because they are experts at tying the knots involved in keeping the tents from flying away (that one's a stretch, I will admit).

I do agree that the design puts the burden on the players and DM to find a nice medium between overspecialization and underspecialization. However, this approach has certain advantages. Any skill system you write up as a fairly "hard" skill system (as in, less room for adjudication) will have balance issues in any campaign that deviates from expectations. One DM might have lots of important information that can only be had by interrogating prisoners, thus making intimidate very good, while another DM might have every enemy be a clueless minion, making intimidate much less useful. I don't generally call for large amounts of DM empowerment, but the truth is that the skill system is there specifically to deal with all the situations the other mechanics don't cover. If DM empowerment is appropriate anywhere, it is in the skills system.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 11:54AM, Authw8 wrote:

The same exact activity, then, could be modified by all sorts of different skills. Imagine the activity of putting together a campsite on a windy mountain.

I don't see how this example is something that you can only do with an open skill list. In fact, you even mention skills from a skill list.

I do agree that the design puts the burden on the players and DM to find a nice medium between overspecialization and underspecialization.

This is my whole problem with the open system.

DM: Okay, pick your skills.
Player: Uhm...what kind of skills?
DM: Anything your character can do.
Player: Uhm...do you have some examples, or a list I can choose from?
DM: No, just like...skills your character has.
Player: Well, like broad skills like "I'm good with tools" or more narrow like "cabinet making"?
DM: Well, somewhere sort of in the middle. I'll tell you if it's too broad or too narrow.
Player: So there aren't really any rules for it, I just make stuff up and you tell me if it's okay or not?

This is what I don't want to see, and it would be particularly problematic for a new player that has never even seen a skill list. You can mitigate it by using a background, but then you're picking from a background instead of a skill list (still a list) or you're not picking from a list and you hit the same problem.

I don't see the advantage an open list has over a closed list, other than "the game designers don't have to write it" and "fewer groups will complain in theory, because they made their own skill list". Especially if you use a couple different skill lists - some broad and some narrow - that the DM can use, depending upon preference. Even further, especially when you can just "Rule 0" any skill list anyhow.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 12:28PM, blacksheepcannibal wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 11:54AM, Authw8 wrote:

Imagine the activity of putting together a campsite on a windy mountain.

I am not sure how this is different from a skill system. You even mention skills. This just looks like a non-combat encounter in which everybody can participate - which is how they are supposed to be designed anyhow.

I do agree that the design puts the burden on the players and DM to find a nice medium between overspecialization and underspecialization.

This is my whole problem with the open system.

DM: Okay, pick your skills.
Player: Uhm...what kind of skills?
DM: Anything your character can do.
Player: Uhm...do you have some examples, or a list I can choose from?
DM: No, just like...skills your character has.
Player: Well, like broad skills like "I'm good with tools" or more narrow like "cabinet making"?
DM: Well, somewhere sort of in the middle. I'll tell you if it's too broad or too narrow.
Player: So there aren't really any rules for it, I just make stuff up and you tell me if it's okay or not?

This is what I don't want to see, and it would be particularly problematic for a new player that has never even seen a skill list. You can mitigate it by using a background, but then you're picking from a background instead of a skill list (still a list) or you're not picking from a list and you hit the same problem.

I don't see the advantage an open list has over a closed list, other than "the game designers don't have to write it" and "fewer groups will complain in theory, because they made their own skill list".

Ah, I see the problem. When I say an "open" list I don't necessarily mean "make up skills." What I mean is that every background (or class, or theme, or whatever) could have its own list of skills, with no attempt to make a single unified skill list. Someone customizing a background would be able to grab from other backgrounds, or make up their own with DM allowance. New supplement books would be able to freely add new skills to the list, without having to try and make new ideas fit into old skills.

I do like the fact that this system makes it very easy to insert new skills into the game, and I like that advanced players could simply name their own skills, presumably working with the DM. But it certainly should not be the default for brand new players.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 12:35PM, Authw8 wrote:

Ah, I see the problem. When I say an "open" list I don't necessarily mean "make up skills." What I mean is that every background (or class, or theme, or whatever) could have its own list of skills, with no attempt to make a single unified skill list. Someone customizing a background would be able to grab from other backgrounds, or make up their own with DM allowance. New supplement books would be able to freely add new skills to the list, without having to try and make new ideas fit into old skills.

I do like the fact that this system makes it very easy to insert new skills into the game, and I like that advanced players could simply name their own skills, presumably working with the DM. But it certainly should not be the default for brand new players.

It's an interesting idea, and I would certainly have no problem with that being a module, but I don't think it's quite the best solution for a baseline.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 12:47PM, blacksheepcannibal wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 12:35PM, Authw8 wrote:

Ah, I see the problem. When I say an "open" list I don't necessarily mean "make up skills." What I mean is that every background (or class, or theme, or whatever) could have its own list of skills, with no attempt to make a single unified skill list. Someone customizing a background would be able to grab from other backgrounds, or make up their own with DM allowance. New supplement books would be able to freely add new skills to the list, without having to try and make new ideas fit into old skills.

I do like the fact that this system makes it very easy to insert new skills into the game, and I like that advanced players could simply name their own skills, presumably working with the DM. But it certainly should not be the default for brand new players.

It's an interesting idea, and I would certainly have no problem with that being a module, but I don't think it's quite the best solution for a baseline.

It's good as a baseline because it easily lets basic players and advanced players sit down and play together. The basic player picks a background, which tells them what they're good at. Advanced players operate in the same framework, but have much greater flexibility.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 8:34AM, Monsieur_Moustache wrote:

We also need a "Use Teeth" skill, then.

With teeth, you can cut ropes or fingers, bite babies to impress people, to take the top off of small bottles of beer, use them as an improvised percussion intrument or improvised missile weapons.

May as well add "Breathe" and "Poop" to the list...

I don't think micromanaging skills is the way to do it.  2e's NWPs were great for deisgners who could pad page counts with ridiculous NWPs.  But I don't think it was good for the game as a whole.  Personally, I'd prefer one of three approaches:

Abilities (BECMI/1e): You get abilities.  No training. If you have a backstory, good for you.
Backgrounds: Pick a background.  One profession or background to describe what you did before you were an adventurer.  If you try something that it pertinent to that profession, you gain advantage.
Skills (4e/playtest): There's a discrete list of skills that have litle overlap and are relatively equal in utility for some assumed default style of game. You get a set number of these in which you are trained.