After playing with the skill die for a number of sessions I have come to the conclusion that I do not like it. I like the intention behind it, I like the math of it, but I do not like how awkward the rolling of it works out. The skill die gets especially confusing when you throw in rogues skill mastery and advantage. There are easier ways to represent competency. I think scaling overall could be better presented, and I think that another mechanic that already exists in 5e might better represent skill training.
Part 1: Scaling
Now many people will probably disagree with this, but I think minor level based scaling should return. I know that "accuracy is bounded" in 5e, and I don't suggest changing that. I would like the see PCs grow in capability as they level in a numerical sense. We can see some automatic scaling already with fighter attack bonuses and the skill die improving from d4 to d12. The scaling I propose is +1 to all ability checks at 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter. This would apply to ability checks used for skill rolls, attack rolls, and saving throws. This bonus represents a high level PCs increased capability through skill and experience. At 20th level the bonus is still relatively minor at only +5. This bonus would also only apply to PCs. Monsters would not have recieve this level based scaling.
This bonus would replace the ability score increases at those levels and the increasing attack/save DC bonuses. A class who is better at combat (like the fighter) would simply recieve a minor bonus (+1) to weapon attacks from level 1 but have no need of a further scaling bonus to attack. Instead their superiority with weapons comes from increased weapon damage much like we have now. *This scaling might also need to be applied to AC.
Part 2: Skills
As I stated earlier, I do not like the skill die, but I think 5e already has a mechanic that can represent skill training quite easily - Advantage. Rolling 2d20 and choosing the best result has a few key features that makes it ideal for skill training. It doesn't raise the maximum value but does increase the tendency for higher values. This means a trained PC is more likely to succeed at a typical task and is less reliant on the luck of the wildly variable d20. This also means that variance between trained individuals and untrained individuals is lessened so that everyone still has the opportunity to participate.
For those who want to specialize in skills even further, I suggest a skill mastery feat which grants a 3rd d20 to the mix. This will even further push up the average and drive down the likelyhood of failure. Rolling more d20s helps to shift the focus from luck to a PCs competency.
So combined with part 1's level based scaling we have a difficulty chart that looks like this:
+10 bonus (+5 ability mod and level 20) +5 bonus (+5 ability mod and level 1 or +0 and 20)
So the most difficult tasks (DC30) can only be accomplished by those with a 20 ability score at level 20 with only a small chance of success. As PCs advance in level they become more likely to accomplish the easier DC 10-18 tasks, but the very difficult tasks (DC22+) remain out of reach to to most low level adventurers and are still difficult to high level trained individuals. Also, as ability scores do not increase with level, having an 18-20 score on a PC will be much harder to find so DC 30 tasks can truly be godlike in difficulty. Note that while similar to the current 5e design, I have reduced the top end DCs by 5 (reducing the DC of most tasks overall).
Edit: Multiple Dice also allows for tasks with varying complexity requiring multiple successes. A reinforced door might require two DC 15 checks to break down. A untrained 10 strength wizard will not be able to break down such a door with a single lucky roll, but a trained 16 strength warrior could.
Lastly advantage could be easily added with this system by having advantage grant an additional d20 to roll (4d20 for a master with advantage). If the number of d20s PCs rolled for attack rolls also increased (perhaps to represent multiple attacks), all minor (+1, +2, +5) bonuses could be removed from the game entirely in favor of a universal advantage mechanic. When a PC is already rolling 2d20, a 3rd d20 is only worth about a +2 bonus. This means conditions that grant these small bonuses could be consolidated within the advantage mechanic. Flanking, attacking a prone enemy, etc could all simply grant an extra d20. This has the benefit of removing conditional modifiers which tend to be a big hangup/slowdown for many groups. Remembering to roll an extra d20 is easier than remembering a +1 here and a +2 there.
1) I'd rather see the stats increase directly (+1 to all stats).
2) Disagree. For the same reason i don't like the current skill dice. Mainly that it's "all or nothing". You can't get "minor advantage". Though the current skill dice can be modified to work with that.
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
The scaling I propose is +1 to all ability checks at 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter. This would apply to ability checks used for skill rolls, attack rolls, and saving throws. This bonus represents a high level PCs increased capability through skill and experience. At 20th level the bonus is still relatively minor at only +5. This bonus would also only apply to PCs. Monsters would not have recieve this level based scaling.
Agreed, although the bonus would need to apply to humanoid-NPCs who possessed anything like class levels. That's a relatively small subset of "monsters", but it would serve to re-inforce the meaning of levels.
This bonus would replace the ability score increases at those levels and the increasing attack/save DC bonuses. A class who is better at combat (like the fighter) would simply recieve a minor bonus (+1) to weapon attacks from level 1 but have no need of a further scaling bonus to attack. Instead their superiority with weapons comes from increased weapon damage much like we have now.
Probably my favorite part of 4E was how fighters were just flat better at fighting, rather than increasingly better at fighting. The game should never assume that only the specialist should have a chance to succeed during ordinary circumstances, and increasing gaps only pigeonholed characters further.
As I stated earlier, I do not like the skill die, but I think 5e already has a mechanic that can represent skill training quite easily - Advantage. Rolling 2d20 and choosing the best result has a few key features that makes it ideal for skill training. It doesn't raise the maximum value but does increase the tendency for higher values. This means a trained PC is more likely to succeed at a typical task and is less reliant on the luck of the wildly variable d20. This also means that variance between trained individuals and untrained individuals is lessened so that everyone still has the opportunity to participate.
I really like the idea of attaching 2d20 to enduring traits of the character, rather than leaving it up to contingent environmental circumstances. Skill checks come up rarely enough that anyone with proper training really should shine and have minimal failure chance.
2) Problem with your system is you can't make a character who is "very good at climbing", for example, if skills don't raise the maximum DC of tasks you can reach.
Yeah you can make a character with high Str but that's saying "my character is Arnold Schwarzenegger" and not "he's really good at climbing."
No matter how many Advantage d20s you roll for being trained or for having skill mastery... you still can't beat a task that has a higher DC, you'll only score more high numbers in that same DC-margin you already had with 1 die.
With the system you propose, the only real way for a character to stand out in a particular task (say climbing for example) is to have a high base ability, which doesn't really represent being an expert in an area. Even the +1 bonus every 4 levels would apply to all characters in all checks, so it wouldn't serve to differentiate your "expert climber" in that particular area from everyone else.
Specializing in a skill or task should allow your character to accomplish more difficult tasks (higher DCs) than those who don't train in that area.
That said, I do find the whole roll d20s plus other dice together somewhat odd and off. Maybe I just need to get used to it, or maybe trade that for static bonuses.
With the system you propose, the only real way for a character to stand out in a particular task (say climbing for example) is to have a high base ability, which doesn't really represent being an expert in an area.
That part really makes sense to me, especially when it comes to physical skills. If someone doesn't have the physical ability to ... say, lift themselves up by their fingertips... then no amount of practice will allow them to do so - unless it's just exercise that builds your strength the normal way. I can easily imagine a surface which is only climbable to someone with that sort of ability, and anyone incapable of that would have no chance - regardless of how much practice they've had climbing fences or trees or other surfaces where you can get a foothold.
It makes sense to me that the person with practice and training will be super consistent about their results, because they know how to make the most of what they have and not make dumb mistakes - which corresponds to consistently rolling high on the die roll.
Now, it doesn't do so great of a job with mental skills, so that's definitely a tradeoff worth considering.
Now many people will probably disagree with this, but I think minor level based scaling should return. I know that "accuracy is bounded" in 5e, and I don't suggest changing that. I would like the see PCs grow in capability as they level in a numerical sense. We can see some automatic scaling already with fighter attack bonuses and the skill die improving from d4 to d12.
I think, to a large extent, that means precisely that you are suggesting changing that. There is a big difference between particular classes getting level-based bonuses to attack or skill dice increasing (which only applies to certain rolls based upon character-defined qualities) and everyone receiving a level-based bonus on most/all d20 rolls all the time.
The scaling I propose is +1 to all ability checks at 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter. This would apply to ability checks used for skill rolls, attack rolls, and saving throws. This bonus represents a high level PCs increased capability through skill and experience. At 20th level the bonus is still relatively minor at only +5. This bonus would also only apply to PCs. Monsters would not have recieve this level based scaling.
Define "relatively minor." The difference between a character that receives a +5 bonus to attack rolls, ability rolls and saving throws (and perhaps AC) and a character that does not is enormous, all other things being equal. Such a change would have ripple effects throughout the game, and you would find for example that monsters absolutely must be designed with this in mind.
I'm not saying that can't work, however it doesn't seem to be the direction the devs are going, and I for one am happy with that. I don't want to see the degree of increasing specialization of characters that 3E had, where characters could reasonably participate in similar activities at low levels but became worlds apart as time went on. I also don't think I want to see automatic bonuses to the extent of 4E. I like the goal of allowing characters to develop in specific areas without moving non-specialized characters or lower-difficulty challenges into obselence. In this sense, it seems we mostly agree on the overall goal, but with an important distinction.
As I stated earlier, I do not like the skill die, but I think 5e already has a mechanic that can represent skill training quite easily - Advantage. Rolling 2d20 and choosing the best result has a few key features that makes it ideal for skill training. It doesn't raise the maximum value but does increase the tendency for higher values. This means a trained PC is more likely to succeed at a typical task and is less reliant on the luck of the wildly variable d20. This also means that variance between trained individuals and untrained individuals is lessened so that everyone still has the opportunity to participate.
For those who want to specialize in skills even further, I suggest a skill mastery feat which grants a 3rd d20 to the mix. This will even further push up the average and drive down the likelyhood of failure. Rolling more d20s helps to shift the focus from luck to a PCs competency.
So combined with part 1's level based scaling we have a difficulty chart that looks like this:
+10 bonus (+5 ability mod and level 20) +5 bonus (+5 ability mod and level 1 or +0 and 20)
So the most difficult tasks (DC30) can only be accomplished by those with a 20 ability score at level 20 with only a small chance of success. As PCs advance in level they become more likely to accomplish the easier DC 10-18 tasks, but the very difficult tasks (DC22+) remain out of reach to to most low level adventurers and are still difficult to high level trained individuals. Also, as ability scores do not increase with level, having an 18-20 score on a PC will be much harder to find so DC 30 tasks can truly be godlike in difficulty.
Lastly advantage could be easily added with this system by having advantage grant an additional d20 to roll (4d20 for a master with advantage). If the number of d20s PCs rolled for attack rolls also increased (perhaps to represent multiple attacks), all minor (+1, +2, +5) bonuses could be removed from the game entirely in favor of a universal advantage mechanic. When a PC is already rolling 2d20, a 3rd d20 is only worth about a +2 bonus. This means conditions that grant these small bonuses could be consolidated within the advantage mechanic. Flanking, attacking a prone enemy, etc could all simply grant an extra d20. This has the benefit of removing conditional modifiers which tend to be a big hangup/slowdown for many groups. Remembering to roll an extra d20 is easier than remembering a +1 here and a +2 there.
I'll ask a similar question: what do you mean by "a 3rd d20 is only worth about a +2 bonus"? (emphasis added.) The number of d20s rolled acts as an exponent on the probability of failure, and that's pretty significant a lot of the time.
I'm not sure I understand your goals or complaints. The skill dice mechanic may make it possible for specialized characters to accomplish tasks that nonspecialized characters cannot, but such tasks never really become routine, and in many ways skill dice allow for greater customization and gradation than a strict pool-of-d20s mechanic. What is it precisely about skill dice you find awkward?
2) Problem with your system is you can't make a character who is "very good at climbing", for example, if skills don't raise the maximum DC of tasks you can reach.
Yeah you can make a character with high Str but that's saying "my character is Arnold Schwarzenegger" and not "he's really good at climbing."
No matter how many Advantage d20s you roll for being trained or for having skill mastery... you still can't beat a task that has a higher DC, you'll only score more high numbers in that same DC-margin you already had with 1 die.
With the system you propose, the only real way for a character to stand out in a particular task (say climbing for example) is to have a high base ability, which doesn't really represent being an expert in an area. Even the +1 bonus every 4 levels would apply to all characters in all checks, so it wouldn't serve to differentiate your "expert climber" in that particular area from everyone else.
Specializing in a skill or task should allow your character to accomplish more difficult tasks (higher DCs) than those who don't train in that area.
I want to "debunk" this myth you present. You have to think of things in terms of bounded accuracy. You aren't going to find DC 30 walls for the most part. In fact most things you will climb will be DC 22 and below. Even a DC 22 wall might be something as challenging as climbing a sheer cliff in the rain.
Let us say we have two average +0 ability modifier humans both trying to climb some walls. One is trained in climbing, the other is not.
The DC 11 easy challenge wall: Trained individual climbs this wall 75% of the time, while untrained one only 50%. A master climber climbs this wall 88% of the time.
DC 14 moderate challenge wall: The untrained individual only succeds at climbing this wall 35% of the time. The trained individual 58% and the master 73%. That seems pretty significant right there. The master is twice as likely to limb such a wall. Remember these are inexperienced (level 1) PCs with only average ability scores.
The DC 18 difficult wall: Untrained climber only succeeds 15% of the time. Trained individual 28% and master 39%. This is a very tough wall, but the trained individual is almost twice as likely to succeed as the untrained one. The master 2.5 times as likely.
The DC 22 very difficult sheer cliff in the rain: It is too much for our inexperienced climbers to tackle. At level 20 though after gaining much climbing experience during the course of their dungeon delving. Untrained individual 20%. Trained 36%. Master 49%. Still a difficult task even though our PCs are challenging gods in combat. The master is clearly the one to choose for this task though as the untrained individual has a fairly good chance of falling to his death (failure by 5+).
Define "relatively minor." The difference between a character that receives a +5 bonus to attack rolls, ability rolls and saving throws (and perhaps AC) and a character that does not is enormous, all other things being equal. Such a change would have ripple effects throughout the game, and you would find for example that monsters absolutely must be designed with this in mind.
One side effect of this change is that, by reducing the accuracy/AC of low level monsters compared to high level ones, you no longer need to scale HP/damage so quickly in order to differentiate them. If a goblin has a 35% chance to hit you, regardless of your level, then you need to have a lot more HP at level 16 to make the goblin as ineffective as it would otherwise be if you'd scaled its chance to hit down to 15 percent.
If someone doesn't have the physical ability to ... say, lift themselves up by their fingertips... then no amount of practice will allow them to do so
Well, see? I'm sure there's plenty of bodybuilders out there who are 10x stronger than him and can't even begin to hope accomplishing that. Cause that guy's just really good at doing what you said... ;P So he can do what for most is impossible.
Well, see? I'm sure there's plenty of bodybuilders out there who are 10x stronger than him and can't even begin to hope accomplishing that. Cause that guy's just really good at doing what you said... ;P So he can do what for most is impossible.
That's just physical strength, though. Granted, it's an entirely different sort of physical strength than bodybuilders have, but that's a system limitation where you only have three stats to represent the entire spectrum of physical capabilities. I really don't want to play a system where you can have different strength scores for your fingers relative to your wrists, legs, or back.
