Community

I agree. 

I think the advantage mechanic adds a lot to the game and see no reason it should be combat only. As you said, skills have specific problems in d20 systems and advantage seems to solve a lot without adding much complexity.

 you reach a point where the difference between an expert and a novice is so great the expert can always succeed at a task and a novice will always fail.

Why is this inappropriate? If you put me in front of a forge, handed me a stack of ingots and told me to make a sword, I'd probably fail. I don't know how to make a sword. There is always that remote outlier chance (represented by the natural 20) that I'll hit the right process by sheer dumb luck, but that's not something that can be relied upon. By contrast, if you put Gabe Newell in front of a forge, handed him a stack of ingots, and told him to make a sword, he'd make a sword. He DOES know how. There is always that remote outlier chance (represented by the natural 1) that he'll screw up something really basic and ruin the blade, but that's not something that will happen often.

However: your suggestion doesn't actually solve the issue. In fact, it makes it worse. J. Random Adventurer has an ability score of 10 and no relevant skills. He fails a DC 11 task half the time--50% accuracy. On the other hand, Random Q. Adventurer (no relation) has an ability score of 18, is trained in a relevant skill, and has Skill Focus. He needs to roll a 4 or better to succeed on a DC 11 skill check, and rolls twice. He succeeds on this task with near 100% accuracy (actually 97.8%).If J. Random were to pick up an appropriate skill training, his success rate jumps to 75% despite having no ability bonus. 

Going by the skill system as presented in the playtest material, J. Random still has a 50% success rate, but Random Q.'s success rate falls to 85%, only a 35% difference. If J. Random were to pick up appropriate training, his success rate becomes 65%--only 20% behind Random Q.




 

The issue with novice/expert is more to do with party dynamics. In 3e especially, but also 4e, it was common for some players to have a bonus 10+ points above other party members. This caused two problems. One, DCs were hard to create that could present an appropriate challenge for the group. Two, the specialist so fat outclassed the rest of the group that it was hard to include everyone during some phases of task resolution.

Now if DCs were along these lines: 5 easy, 10 average, 15 hard, 20 very hard, 25 legendary, then being trained has a big benefit. As you said someone with focus and a high score can almost auto succeed an average task, while someone with an average score and no training only has a 55% chance. The difference is the person with no training can still attempt the task and contribute to the groups success even at difficulties that the trained person auto succeeds. Because the variance is lower between highest skill and lowest, it takes longer for those who aren't trained to be pushed into the "why bother rolling" category. This tends to happen around level 8 in 4e and as early as 1st level in 3e.

Jun 18, 2012 -- 8:04AM, Lawolf wrote:

All d20 systems have had one major flaw when it comes to skills. This is the variance in a single d20 roll. Even when trained, a character can still have 30-40% chance to fail at every task they attempt. If the bonus from training gets too high though you reach a point where the difference between an expert and a novice is so great the expert can always succeed at a task and a novice will always fail. If D&D 5e is striving for flatter math in general, being trained in a skill should reflect this. I propose that skill training give advantage to ability checks related to that skill instead of a flat bonus. This can greatly improve a characters chance of success without requiring massive math changes. It also helps to normalize the variance of the d20 roll. Skill focus should still exist for players who want be even more specialized and receive an additional +3 bonus. Any thoughts?

I like it, except that I would have training give +3 AND advantage, with skill focus an additional +3.  Training should offer more than just a better chance of rolling higher than someone who is untrained, while still allowing someone untrained to have a shot at it (providing it isn't a trained only skill).  Skill focus would be for the experts/savants in the field.

I think the problem is not the difference between the skilled and expert. The problem is the misunderstanding of the concept of DCs.

A DC of 21 is supposed to be impossible for a normal with +0. Only experts are supposed to even succeed at 21+ DCs unaided. Same with opposed checks. A trained thief sneaks by average joes at a high percentage. In online multiplayer games, the experts beat the new players at a high rate of success.

The problem is the misunderstanding of DCs. DCs are not relative to the attempter. An easy Search check is easy for a normal and automatic for a expert. A hard spot check is difficult for a normal and easy for an expert. An impossible search check is impossible for a normal and difficult for the expert.

DMs just have to understand DCs better.