|
10 months ago ::
Aug 24, 2012 - 3:22PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2007
|
Anyone here who hasn't already, I would like your input on "Skillful blend of 3e and 4e" I want to see if the compromise and modularity I propose there would satisfy your concerns.
Val I was hoping folks would start compiling all our thoughts in the much easier to browse, wiki format. I added it to my sig, but haven't seen much use from it. Think you'd mind adding it to your sig as well and encouraging its use?
Unfortunately for me the iPhone format does not show sigs.
That and it butchers the wiki.
If there is a call for this then I could support it but I really will have to do the bulk of my contributing here on the threads.
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 24, 2012 - 4:07PM
#22
|
|
|
Anyone here who hasn't already, I would like your input on "Skillful blend of 3e and 4e" I want to see if the compromise and modularity I propose there would satisfy your concerns.
I typed in the 4e hierarchy in the Essentials manual here. Of course the hierarchy there is skill categories with different skill adjucations for each subskill listed, not the tiered bonus/advantage idea.
community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 24, 2012 - 10:18PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2009
|
Anyone here who hasn't already, I would like your input on "Skillful blend of 3e and 4e" I want to see if the compromise and modularity I propose there would satisfy your concerns.
Val I was hoping folks would start compiling all our thoughts in the much easier to browse, wiki format. I added it to my sig, but haven't seen much use from it. Think you'd mind adding it to your sig as well and encouraging its use?
Unfortunately for me the iPhone format does not show sigs.
That and it butchers the wiki.
If there is a call for this then I could support it but I really will have to do the bulk of my contributing here on the threads.
In that case I'd suggest editing the first post of the threads with a compilation so new readers can avoid stomping through hundreds of posts to find out what the discussion has uncovered.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 24, 2012 - 10:21PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2007
|
Agreed.
I have done this with Skillful blend of 3e and 4e.
Will do my best to keep that updated.
If you want to copy my summaries to the wiki then I would not be opposed.
I'm just unable to do so regularly myself.
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 24, 2012 - 11:03PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
May 10, 2012
|
My question is: do we really need skills at all? As a dm, I love having most checks default to abilities. Why not let the backgrounds BE your skills. Background of noble? Great, get +3 on anything noble-related. Period. How about that?
That's exactly how 13th Age does it, and you are totally free to come up with any background trait you want without having to select from a list. So if your character was a former sailor, he would be good with ropes, gathering information in a port town, negotiating the use of a ship, etc. What's great about such a system is that it encourages you to role play rather than causing you to view things in terms of the game mechanics. If there is set list of skills that everyone has access to, the result is that the differences between characters is just a matter of math, regardless of how broad or narrow those skills are. That reduces the role playing aspect. It's a lot more fun to say "my character grew up in a forest so she knows about the wilderness" rather than "I'm playing a Druid which means I'm automatically trained in Nature".
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 24, 2012 - 11:35PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2004
|
The only change I don't like is them assigning a single attribute to a skill.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 24, 2012 - 11:47PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
|
I agree. I don't like skills being tied to an attribute. I like the flexibility of attribute checks with a skill modifier if applicable.
In addition, I like backgrounds and thank they are a great idea. However, I would like to have a single skill based on class selection.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 24, 2012 - 11:50PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
@OP: I agree emphatically.  If you were to rely heavily on attribute checks, then you might just use backgrounds as a straight bonus. For example, if you have a background of miner +3, then any ability check in relation to mining would recieve a +3 whether it is how to clear it (strength), how to re-enforce the walls (wisdom), how to recruit help (cha), etc. It does make for a simple system, and you can go wild with different types of backgrounds through the characters life, so a dwarf starts off as a miner, becomes a trader with the humans nearby, and eventually becomes a banker in the human town nearby. Not sure if that is a good example, but I can see how it may work. Or I may have totally missed your point.
Yes!  As I understood it, the above is how things were going to be in Next.* I thought it was interesting and clean and flexible and awesome! But then BAM the second playtest went in a different direction.  I guess I was a bit disappointed to see that.
*References:
Show
(a) First playtest packet from May 24, How To Play file, page 1, Checks, Making a Check, Apply Bonuses & Penalties says, "If a class feature, a skill, a spell, or some other effect gives you a bonus or a penalty to this check, apply it to your current total. Some bonuses and penalties apply to all checks made with a particular ability. Others apply only under certain circumstances." (b) http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/05/16/skills_and_task_resolution , paragraph 8 says, "The six abilities cover the basics of what a character can do in the world, so skills speak to specific tasks normally associated with an ability." Groupings like athletics are exactly the sort of thing I think are bad for the game. They're way too general and broad. In fact, the reason I dislike diplomacy is because it exhibits many of the same traits as a grouping like athletics.
Althletics is basically "are you doing something physical, never mind the surrounding context? Ok, the bonus applies"
Diplomacy is "are you talking to someone, anyone, doesn't matter who they are or what the context is? Ok, the bonus applies"
I like skills that are more like "Are you doing something, anything, that relates to your specific/narrow field of expertise? Ok, the bonus applies"
This.  Good illustration of the difference. The playtest direction seems to have gone back to focusing on a skills "system" rather than making more use of the ability scores.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 25, 2012 - 5:57AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2009
|
The above post and Hobojustice hit a lot of things I like that've been said. The only thing I'd add is there does need to be a list to pick from for new players who aren't as creative.
Putting someone on the spot to 'make something up' in their first roleplaying game has mixed results.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 25, 2012 - 11:32AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2007
|
My question is: do we really need skills at all? As a dm, I love having most checks default to abilities. Why not let the backgrounds BE your skills. Background of noble? Great, get +3 on anything noble-related. Period. How about that?
That's exactly how 13th Age does it, and you are totally free to come up with any background trait you want without having to select from a list. So if your character was a former sailor, he would be good with ropes, gathering information in a port town, negotiating the use of a ship, etc. What's great about such a system is that it encourages you to role play rather than causing you to view things in terms of the game mechanics. If there is set list of skills that everyone has access to, the result is that the differences between characters is just a matter of math, regardless of how broad or narrow those skills are. That reduces the role playing aspect. It's a lot more fun to say "my character grew up in a forest so she knows about the wilderness" rather than "I'm playing a Druid which means I'm automatically trained in Nature".
This is how AD&D handled it until the addition of non weapon proficiencies.
Some groups don't handle it well. Some groups do.
I think this should be an option for groups who don't like skills but we have to build the system for groups who dislike that method.
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
|
|
|
