|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 1:20AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
A shift in terminology might be useful, if only to divorce ourselves from the drama of the last two editions.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 2:16AM
#22
|
|
|
Lots of discussion on Fighters, Rogues, other classes, and skills, has made me really sit down and look at skills and "training".
I'm kind of curious why we have "trained" as the terminology for "skills-you-are-gooder-at", and if there's any interest in stepping back to the "proficient" terminology (akin to 2e's "Non-weapon Proficiencies", only we wouldn't call them that).
It's a pretty insignificant change overall, but "proficient" just feels more character concept neutral than "trained" when it comes to skills, because it doesn't suggest any answer to "Why is the character good at this skill?"
Just a thought.
I like the word “proficient” better.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 2:24AM
#23
|
|
|
I would prefer to do trained if they included a Fighting, Shooting, and Spellcasting skill to the game.
As D&D traditionally does weapon proficiencies instead of combat skills, I prefer proficiencies.
Either way I would like to see both skills and combat follow the same mechanics for the sake of simplicity and elegance. We don't need 12 unique susbsystems for "roll a d20 and add X to it".
Yeah, I agree. I wasn't a huge fan of the idea originally, but transitioning combat to "combat skills" would make me much, much happier at this point. "Skill Dice" and all.
What really is the difference between an “attack” and a “combat skill check”? The higher one rolls, the better. The “Armor Class” (AC) means the same thing as the “Difficulty Class” (DC).
In terms of switching to a “combat skills system”, how exactly does the feel of the game change?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 5:36AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2005
|
I hashed out the math on using combat skills here. My numbers may not be perfect for some because I aimed for a 50% hit rate. What I discovered if you take the average ability bonus for a PC (+2) and the average skill die (none, d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 which falls between d6 and d8) with a d20 and you get a 50% hit rate with an AC of 17. This becomes our average AC making our lowest AC 1 and the highest possible AC 33. The majority of AC's will then need to fall between half a standard deviation of the mean, nearly all the rest within 1 standard deviation, and less than 1% outside of that. So our marjority of AC falls between 13 to 21, the rest fall between 8 to 26, with nearly nothing falling outside of that. It works out well because a PC with full +3 Armor and Shield can reach a 26. It basically changes the math so that people can actually see the bounds of the system. I went ahead and copied the chart to show the math of this system. Assumed ability bonuses were raised for the fighter, rogue, and monk, with a +3 at level 1, a +4 at level 10, and a +5 at level 20 for their ability bonus. For the Cleric and Wizard, with a +2 at level 1, a +3 at levels 5 and 10, a +4 at 15 and a +5 at 20. For the wizard I am assuming they are upgrading their Dex and using a finesse weapon. None of them have a magical to hit bonus.
|
13 |
17 |
21 |
26 |
33 |
| F/M/R |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
67.50% |
47.50% |
27.50% |
3.75% |
0.00% |
| 5 |
72.50% |
52.50% |
32.50% |
8.33% |
0.00% |
| 10 |
82.50% |
62.50% |
42.50% |
17.50% |
0.00% |
| 15 |
86.00% |
67.50% |
47.50% |
22.50% |
1.50% |
| 20 |
91.25% |
77.08% |
57.50% |
32.50% |
6.25% |
| C |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
50.00% |
30.00% |
10.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| 5 |
55.00% |
35.00% |
15.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| 10 |
67.50% |
47.50% |
27.50% |
3.75% |
0.00% |
| 15 |
77.50% |
57.50% |
37.50% |
12.50% |
0.00% |
| 20 |
82.50% |
62.50% |
42.50% |
17.50% |
0.00% |
| W |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
50.00% |
30.00% |
10.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| 5 |
55.00% |
35.00% |
15.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| 10 |
55.00% |
35.00% |
15.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| 15 |
60.00% |
40.00% |
20.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| 20 |
65.00% |
45.00% |
25.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
To me the numbers feel right.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 8:53AM
#25
|
|
|
pro·fi·cient
adj.
Having or marked by an advanced degree of competence, as in an art, vocation, profession, or branch of learning.
n.
An expert; an adept. Yeah I suppose the OP has a point. Since they want skills to optional and not core, I suppose we need to assume that a person not having a skill dice in, say, Climb, doesn't necessary mean he never did some training in climbing. Or else the interpretation would be that no character ever trained anything in his life other than hitting things and/or casting spells when skills are not used, which I suppose is not the case. So, yea, maybe "Proficient" would hit the sweet spot.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 9:47AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
pro·fi·cient adj. Having or marked by an advanced degree of competence, as in an art, vocation, profession, or branch of learning.
n.
An expert; an adept.
Proficiency is therefore linked to competency. A person can be a very good swimmer without any formal training. They may have developed the talent on their own or it might be a skill where raw strength or intelligence is sufficient.
Training is linked to experience and perhaps some formal learning in that skill. It suggests competence but some people who are trained are not necessarily good at what they do.
The skill die should come from training. A low ability score still indicates a low level of competency despite the training but a trained individual has an advantage over an untrained individual of the same level of raw talent.
Players should be trained in a skill. That would be my preferred choice of words.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 10:03AM
#27
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I still don't know what's wrong with Skilled and Unskilled. It keys right into the name of the mechanic, and does not imply training as one can be naturally skilled at a task.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 10:04AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
Skilled and Unskilled certainly work as well.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
