Community

Well, I was looking over the coming rules after finally hearing about this change. And it seems promising so far. Just an initial complaint I have regarding the skills that I wished to say after a brief stint searching the boards on the topic for a thread that might already be existing. Sadly I had no luck finding a relevant one. So my apologies for duplications.

Could you remove/combine a few skills which I found to be redundant or better covered elsewhere?

Climb - This should be combined with Escape Artist and Use Rope. Or attached to an ability like Strength.

Drive - seems to be something that should be covered by Ride, and the usefulness of this is not that appearant unless you are expecting a lot of chariot races? I don't recall any of the games I ran or played ever needing a cart driver on a professional level.

Disguise - In a high or medium magic campaign, this is one of the least used skills out there. Most players would revert to Bluff or Perform for a better mod in a skill that has more applications for the few levels they have to wait before they get thier first alter appearance magic item.

Escape Artist - is a skill I have never seen used except in rare circumstances when I might want to have a single player get out of bonds before freeing the others. I think it deserves to be added to another skill like Use Rope or vice versa so there is incentive to get this skill or that skill; with a bonus to climb as well.

Intimidate - Always an argument on this skill, but I think it deserves to be combined with Persuade as an option on the players part. Knights are just as intimdating as they are persuasive using the books example. Why diferentiate?

Knowledge (History) - This skill is already covered by Folklore, Occult, and all the other skills. I see no benefit to its existance. I saw the post from ages ago http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29147007/Trained_S... listing Commerce as a knowledge. This would be far more useful as you could concievably know currency origins, merchant routes, item values, artifact buyers, etc. I would like it brought back and put in the knowledge list. Especially considering that you could concievably know about sunken ships, lost convoys, etc.

Swim - I have never seen this used all that much. And on the rare occasion, it was more to slow down the players than it was to challenge them. No one wants to put their players in a save or die position, and that is really the majority of time that the roll was invoked. It would be much better to make this skills inherant to the abilities of Constitution.

Otherwise, I think I like the direction the game is going, and look forward to getting my feet wet comprehending the rules in play.

Intimidate needs to be tied to Strength, and in our games we have allowed STR or CHA to be applied to Intimidate

Drive and Knowledge History I agree with
Drive literally seems pointless and History feels far too 'catch all' at times

Feb 25, 2013 -- 5:15PM, LKD wrote:

Well, I was looking over the coming rules after finally hearing about this change. And it seems promising so far. Just an initial complaint I have regarding the skills that I wished to say after a brief stint searching the boards on the topic for a thread that might already be existing. Sadly I had no luck finding a relevant one. So my apologies for duplications.

Could you remove/combine a few skills which I found to be redundant or better covered elsewhere?

Climb - This should be combined with Escape Artist and Use Rope. Or attached to an ability like Strength.

Climb, Escape Artist and Use Rope describe three separate and distinct trainings. 

Drive - seems to be something that should be covered by Ride, and the usefulness of this is not that appearant unless you are expecting a lot of chariot races? I don't recall any of the games I ran or played ever needing a cart driver on a professional level.

Spelljammer and Eberron provide ample opportunities for steering airships, lightningrail cars, etc.

Disguise - In a high or medium magic campaign, this is one of the least used skills out there. Most players would revert to Bluff or Perform for a better mod in a skill that has more applications for the few levels they have to wait before they get thier first alter appearance magic item.

Not all campaigns are high or medium magic.

Escape Artist - is a skill I have never seen used except in rare circumstances when I might want to have a single player get out of bonds before freeing the others. I think it deserves to be added to another skill like Use Rope or vice versa so there is incentive to get this skill or that skill; with a bonus to climb as well.

You can apply this skill in situations where you're wiggling through a crawl space, attempting to free yourself from a Web spell, or trying to escape a grapple -- all of which don't fall under the purview of Use Rope.

Intimidate - Always an argument on this skill, but I think it deserves to be combined with Persuade as an option on the players part. Knights are just as intimdating as they are persuasive using the books example. Why diferentiate?

Persuasion and intimidation are not one and the same.

Knowledge (History) - This skill is already covered by Folklore, Occult, and all the other skills. I see no benefit to its existance. I saw the post from ages ago http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29147007/Trained_S... listing Commerce as a knowledge. This would be far more useful as you could concievably know currency origins, merchant routes, item values, artifact buyers, etc. I would like it brought back and put in the knowledge list. Especially considering that you could concievably know about sunken ships, lost convoys, etc.

None of the other knowledges describe themselves as covering the extant kingdoms and long history of all humanoids. Folklore and the occult are specific to completely different things.

Swim - I have never seen this used all that much. And on the rare occasion, it was more to slow down the players than it was to challenge them. No one wants to put their players in a save or die position, and that is really the majority of time that the roll was invoked. It would be much better to make this skills inherant to the abilities of Constitution.

Entire campaigns take place at sea and among pirates, where water and Swim are guarantees.

Feb 25, 2013 -- 5:27PM, Talamare wrote:

Intimidate needs to be tied to Strength, and in our games we have allowed STR or CHA to be applied to Intimidate

None of the skills are tied to any specific ability score. Your description of your character's actions are what determine the appropriate score for the check called by the DM.

"Climb, Escape Artist and Use Rope describe three separate and distinct trainings"

Yes, but in a similar fashion, Heal describes biology, poisons, illness. I don't see either of those three as so important, or so useful, that they need their own listing when 90% of the other skills are a grouping of similar talents. Which was my main point. As a perfect example, Dungeoneering covers about 5 different skills. I do appreciate the differences in the skills, but it seems that the description doesn't match the feel of the other skills which are more groupings of 3-6 similar abilities. In that vein, I don't understand why these three are seperate. They seem wrong, and too specific.

"Spelljammer and Eberron provide ample opportunities for steering airships, lightningrail cars, etc."

I understand, but if you disgree with use rope and escape artist, would it be reasonable to encompass clipperships, airships and wagon trains in the same skill? I don't wish to argue, I'm just curious as to others thoughts because the skills don't seem completely intuitive to me yet.

"Not all campaigns are high or medium magic."

No, not at all, why I made a specific point to preface the concern with medium to high magic worlds regarding the skill which I believe is the bulk of the worlds people play in.

"Persuasion and intimidation are not one and the same.'

They are the same in the end. Getting someone to do something you want. A persuasive persone will just as easily threaten you and with as much skill. Why seperate them? I am exceedingly curious why they should be seperate.

"None of the other knowledges describe themselves as covering the extant kingdoms and long history of all humanoids. Folklore and the occult are specific to completely different things."

Heraldry covers humanoids and the extant Kindoms. I don't yet see a reason to have a History Knowledge that is handled in the other knowledges.

"None of the skills are tied to any specific ability score. Your description of your character's actions are what determine the appropriate score for the check called by the DM."

Jump is covered by Strength. Why not do this with Swim?

I appreciate the questions and disagreements. Hope my tone isn't one of abject disagreement. It's not.

Pathfinder did a good job with escape artist, letting you use it to get out of grapples and even bust out of quite a few etanglement spell effects (like web) a point that DDN isnt making.... they should adopt that

Feb 25, 2013 -- 5:15PM, LKD wrote:

Well, I was looking over the coming rules after finally hearing about this change. And it seems promising so far. Just an initial complaint I have regarding the skills that I wished to say after a brief stint searching the boards on the topic for a thread that might already be existing. Sadly I had no luck finding a relevant one. So my apologies for duplications.

Could you remove/combine a few skills which I found to be redundant or better covered elsewhere?

Climb - This should be combined with Escape Artist and Use Rope. Or attached to an ability like Strength.

Drive - seems to be something that should be covered by Ride, and the usefulness of this is not that appearant unless you are expecting a lot of chariot races? I don't recall any of the games I ran or played ever needing a cart driver on a professional level.

Disguise - In a high or medium magic campaign, this is one of the least used skills out there. Most players would revert to Bluff or Perform for a better mod in a skill that has more applications for the few levels they have to wait before they get thier first alter appearance magic item.

Escape Artist - is a skill I have never seen used except in rare circumstances when I might want to have a single player get out of bonds before freeing the others. I think it deserves to be added to another skill like Use Rope or vice versa so there is incentive to get this skill or that skill; with a bonus to climb as well.

Intimidate - Always an argument on this skill, but I think it deserves to be combined with Persuade as an option on the players part. Knights are just as intimdating as they are persuasive using the books example. Why diferentiate?

Knowledge (History) - This skill is already covered by Folklore, Occult, and all the other skills. I see no benefit to its existance. I saw the post from ages ago http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29147007/Trained_S... listing Commerce as a knowledge. This would be far more useful as you could concievably know currency origins, merchant routes, item values, artifact buyers, etc. I would like it brought back and put in the knowledge list. Especially considering that you could concievably know about sunken ships, lost convoys, etc.

Swim - I have never seen this used all that much. And on the rare occasion, it was more to slow down the players than it was to challenge them. No one wants to put their players in a save or die position, and that is really the majority of time that the roll was invoked. It would be much better to make this skills inherant to the abilities of Constitution.

Otherwise, I think I like the direction the game is going, and look forward to getting my feet wet comprehending the rules in play.

There's also Survival and Track.  Since Survival includes hunting and gathering, it would make sense that it also includes hunting.

Also, though not really redundant, Spot, Listen, and Search all have to do with gathering clues using your senses.  Perhaps combine Spot and Search into Look.

Feb 25, 2013 -- 5:15PM, LKD wrote:

Well, I was looking over the coming rules after finally hearing about this change. And it seems promising so far. Just an initial complaint I have regarding the skills that I wished to say after a brief stint searching the boards on the topic for a thread that might already be existing. Sadly I had no luck finding a relevant one. So my apologies for duplications.

Could you remove/combine a few skills which I found to be redundant or better covered elsewhere?

Climb - This should be combined with Escape Artist and Use Rope. Or attached to an ability like Strength.

Drive - seems to be something that should be covered by Ride, and the usefulness of this is not that appearant unless you are expecting a lot of chariot races? I don't recall any of the games I ran or played ever needing a cart driver on a professional level.

Disguise - In a high or medium magic campaign, this is one of the least used skills out there. Most players would revert to Bluff or Perform for a better mod in a skill that has more applications for the few levels they have to wait before they get thier first alter appearance magic item.

Escape Artist - is a skill I have never seen used except in rare circumstances when I might want to have a single player get out of bonds before freeing the others. I think it deserves to be added to another skill like Use Rope or vice versa so there is incentive to get this skill or that skill; with a bonus to climb as well.

Intimidate - Always an argument on this skill, but I think it deserves to be combined with Persuade as an option on the players part. Knights are just as intimdating as they are persuasive using the books example. Why diferentiate?

Knowledge (History) - This skill is already covered by Folklore, Occult, and all the other skills. I see no benefit to its existance. I saw the post from ages ago http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29147007/Trained_S... listing Commerce as a knowledge. This would be far more useful as you could concievably know currency origins, merchant routes, item values, artifact buyers, etc. I would like it brought back and put in the knowledge list. Especially considering that you could concievably know about sunken ships, lost convoys, etc.

Swim - I have never seen this used all that much. And on the rare occasion, it was more to slow down the players than it was to challenge them. No one wants to put their players in a save or die position, and that is really the majority of time that the roll was invoked. It would be much better to make this skills inherant to the abilities of Constitution.

Otherwise, I think I like the direction the game is going, and look forward to getting my feet wet comprehending the rules in play.

There's also Survival and Track.  Since Survival includes hunting and gathering, it would make sense that it also includes tracking.

Also, though not really redundant, Spot, Listen, and Search all have to do with gathering clues using your senses.  Perhaps combine Spot and Search into Look.

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758... This is a very similar topic. The search engine is appauling, its only becausr I rembered the topic name I found it.

Keendk,

Yes, thank you, that's the thread I expected to find out there. Shame I missed it initially.

4e converged Spot, Listen and Search into Perception

Perception became the best skill in the game, mandatory to have at least 1 person with it

Feb 27, 2013 -- 2:00AM, Talamare wrote:

4e converged Spot, Listen and Search into Perception

Perception became the best skill in the game, mandatory to have at least 1 person with it

ld say in 3.5 spot had the same effect. You could get by without listen or search, so maybe its just that what is important in most games is instant visual clues. Cant think of a way to get around that.

Feb 27, 2013 -- 4:05AM, Keendk wrote:

Feb 27, 2013 -- 2:00AM, Talamare wrote:

4e converged Spot, Listen and Search into Perception

Perception became the best skill in the game, mandatory to have at least 1 person with it

ld say in 3.5 spot had the same effect. You could get by without listen or search, so maybe its just that what is important in most games is instant visual clues. Cant think of a way to get around that.

Well, part of the problem is that senses are not always used independently.  I understand why 4e combined skills for Perception and Stealth, and, in many ways, that was a good idea.  However, the senses can be used independently in enough situations that it might be worthwhile to keep some separation.  IDK.

you could do the extraordinairy specialisation of the senses with feats/skill tricks/racials i guess. I quite liked the 3.5 skillsand your ability to branch out and differentiate, too bad it doesnt work well with bonded accuracy.

Feb 27, 2013 -- 4:21AM, Keendk wrote:

you could do the extraordinairy specialisation of the senses with feats/skill tricks/racials i guess. I quite liked the 3.5 skillsand your ability to branch out and differentiate, too bad it doesnt work well with bonded accuracy.

It could, but it would add a layer of complexity.  So, say we have the Perception skill to cover all the different uses of the senses.  A feat or race could give a small bonus to anything requiring sight, say a +1 or +2.  But then, when a DM calls for a Wisdom check, and says the players can use their Perception, he or she may also have to specify whether or not they'd get the sight bonus.  In addition, that's more math that would be necessary, adding d20 + WIS mod + skill die + sight bonus.  Another solution, using the skill die, would be that you'd step the die size up for sight, making the math easier, but the players would still have to grab the right die for that particular sense.  I don't know if that would be worth it, either.  For most groups, just having the Perception skill would probably be enough, and those races with keen senses would automatically be trained.  Keeping things that simple may be the best way to go.

Feb 27, 2013 -- 4:43AM, Another_Rules_Lawyer wrote:

Feb 27, 2013 -- 4:21AM, Keendk wrote:

you could do the extraordinairy specialisation of the senses with feats/skill tricks/racials i guess. I quite liked the 3.5 skillsand your ability to branch out and differentiate, too bad it doesnt work well with bonded accuracy.

It could, but it would add a layer of complexity.  So, say we have the Perception skill to cover all the different uses of the senses.  A feat or race could give a small bonus to anything requiring sight, say a +1 or +2.  But then, when a DM calls for a Wisdom check, and says the players can use their Perception, he or she may also have to specify whether or not they'd get the sight bonus.  In addition, that's more math that would be necessary, adding d20 + WIS mod + skill die + sight bonus.  Another solution, using the skill die, would be that you'd step the die size up for sight, making the math easier, but the players would still have to grab the right die for that particular sense.  I don't know if that would be worth it, either.  For most groups, just having the Perception skill would probably be enough, and those races with keen senses would automatically be trained.  Keeping things that simple may be the best way to go.

The elf racial trait Keen Senses offers free training in the Listen and Spot skills, which perfectly addresses the outcome you're trying to achieve.

Feb 27, 2013 -- 6:36AM, mrpopstar wrote:

Feb 27, 2013 -- 4:43AM, Another_Rules_Lawyer wrote:

Feb 27, 2013 -- 4:21AM, Keendk wrote:

you could do the extraordinairy specialisation of the senses with feats/skill tricks/racials i guess. I quite liked the 3.5 skillsand your ability to branch out and differentiate, too bad it doesnt work well with bonded accuracy.

It could, but it would add a layer of complexity.  So, say we have the Perception skill to cover all the different uses of the senses.  A feat or race could give a small bonus to anything requiring sight, say a +1 or +2.  But then, when a DM calls for a Wisdom check, and says the players can use their Perception, he or she may also have to specify whether or not they'd get the sight bonus.  In addition, that's more math that would be necessary, adding d20 + WIS mod + skill die + sight bonus.  Another solution, using the skill die, would be that you'd step the die size up for sight, making the math easier, but the players would still have to grab the right die for that particular sense.  I don't know if that would be worth it, either.  For most groups, just having the Perception skill would probably be enough, and those races with keen senses would automatically be trained.  Keeping things that simple may be the best way to go.

The elf racial trait Keen Senses offers free training in the Listen and Spot skills, which perfectly addresses the outcome you're trying to achieve.

Not perfectly.  If you're trying to notice someone sneaking up on you, you might use both sight and hearing, because you could catch a glimpse of their movement, or you might hear their footsteps, breathing, or change jingling in their belt pouch.  Does how you noticed matter much to the fact that you noticed?  Should a sneaking character roll both a Move Silent check opposed by Listen, and a Hide check opposed by Spot?  Or can a Sneak versus Perception roll do close enough to the same thing that it's worth losing a little realism for simplicity?  And, if a character is hidin, and someone is actively looking for him, do we need a separate Search skill to model that?

Feb 27, 2013 -- 6:45AM, Another_Rules_Lawyer wrote:

Not perfectly.  If you're trying to notice someone sneaking up on you, you might use both sight and hearing, because you could catch a glimpse of their movement, or you might hear their footsteps, breathing, or change jingling in their belt pouch.  Does how you noticed matter much to the fact that you noticed?  Should a sneaking character roll both a Move Silent check opposed by Listen, and a Hide check opposed by Spot?  Or can a Sneak versus Perception roll do close enough to the same thing that it's worth losing a little realism for simplicity?  And, if a character is hidin, and someone is actively looking for him, do we need a separate Search skill to model that?

I guess I'm not seeing the issue.

There are no separate checks made to move silently or hide In this edition, there is only the blanket adjudication of stealth. The rules governing stealth state that "A creature can attempt a Dexterity check to sneak around, moving quietly and using cover and heavily obscured areas to avoid detection." (How to Play 8)

A single Dexterity check determines the success of a creature's attempt at stealth.

The ability used to oppose the Dexterity check of someone sneaking around is called for by the Dungeon Master based upon the player's description of what their character is doing in the game. If the character is not actively paying attention, then a Wisdom vs Dexterity contest is recommended. If the character is actively searching for signs of the creature's presence, then an Intelligence vs Dexterity contest is recommended. Based upon the player's description of the actively searching character's method, skill training may be employed to modify the Intelligence check.

Are you using your training in Spot to discern the shadows? Are you using your training in Listen to decipher the sounds? It sounds like you want to use your training in a single skill to discern the shadows, decipher the sounds, and notice any other sensory happening the Dungeon Master is attempting to slip past -- which is essentially what Perception amounted to in 4E.

Spot/Listen:
What I was trying to say was: Do we need both listen and spot, does it make the game better than having just perception?
With the current system as you say, stealth is countered by either (not both) so only 1 skill is necessary there, either is equally powerful.
Then there are all the other things, do you notice the buzzards in the sky, do you hear the distant rumble of scared buffalo. Do we really need to have 2 skills for this? Why is it important how it was perceived that the lion killed a buffalo if the intent of the Wisdom check was to alert people to the presence of lions?
Also the game master calls for an [attribute] check and the players then ask if they can use their listen skill...if I say no ive given away that its a visual clue (and ofc vice versa), and have thus spoiled some of the mystery.
The only real place I can think of where its important to differentiate is sensory status effects, blinded and deafened. (I even think ive mentioned this somewhere else, or Im experiencing a deja vu right now :p)

 So why have 2 skills that does the same thing in 95% of the cases and can NEVER be used at same time.

--------------------
Search/Spot:
Is a remnant of the past to give you the ability to spot things/clues with your INT stat. You can now spot things with your INT stat by default if the DM calls for that, and I see no reason why to differentiate spotting clues vs spotting clues (intentionally the same words twice) where one is "usually used with int" and the other "usually used with wisdom". The reason it still exists is a copy/paste error where the rest of the system has moved on but it has quietly been left behind. It has no place what so ever in a system where skills arent tied to a stat any more.
Searching with Wisdom and spotting with Int, why not? Its the same thing, its visually observing, the key to HOW its done is in the stat.

@Keendk:
Exactly.  And hide and move silently have combined into stealth, so why still have two different skills which could oppose it?

I can understand search being it's own skill as you are using it in conjuction with physical touch, for instance searching for traps or secret passages, but spot and listen serve no real purpose being seperated. I agree with you.

If you take a blind character, they would chose listen as a skill forgoing an instant fail on spot checks. Do you lose anything by this mechanism being combined? Can't the DM decide that they can not apply the skill in that situation instead of asking the player to break apart the talents? The only value for seperating the skills is to limit character investment in skills so they aren't a "be all to everything" character. Which is an understandable goal for the design.

But is this skill worth the differentiation? Could you not limit the character in other ways that make more sense? I agree that there is no benefit to anyone for this choice in design.

I agree with OP that there are too many skills, too many redundancies, and too many confusing bits of legacy left in (especially to someone who has no experience with previous editions).

The differentiation between Spot and Search is too fine and not worth the page or two it takes to explain. This edition needs to clearly and simply explain skill usage. Instead, it has chosen to obfuscate matters by tying Search to Intelligence and Spot to Wisdom, all the while claiming that any skill might be linked to multiple attributes.

As for Search being used to search for traps... Why not Spot? I never understood why it works like this. If you're walking down a hallway with a concealed pit trap, why would Search help you locate the mechanism that pulls the floor out from under you? Shouldn't the trap be spotted (by a combination of intuition and good luck) rather than force the rogue to laboriously prod at every 5 foot square with a rod before he finds it?

In addition, there needs to be a core rule for group checks. If you say "only the group leader gets to roll" then multiple players who have taken Search/Spot will be useless. If the whole group gets a roll, then traps are much easier to locate through the power of sheer number of d20s alone.

Groups checks would be a good tool for the DM when rolling in secret to increase the odds of success. But for the party, if they fail, then they will want individual rolls just to be sure and game the system.

both 4e and pathfinder combined certain skills that were too closely related

Search + Spot + Listen = Perception
Hide + Move Silenty = Stealth
Survival + Track = Survival
for pathfinder, Gather Information got combined into Diplomacy

To me, these were welcome changes.  Since they are perfectly okay with combining Diplomacy and Bluff into Persuasion, they clearly get the concept. 
There is no functional reason to separate spot and listen, and with the limited number of skills available for training, these seem liek reasonable changes. 

Feb 27, 2013 -- 6:44PM, Uchawi wrote:

Groups checks would be a good tool for the DM when rolling in secret to increase the odds of success. But for the party, if they fail, then they will want individual rolls just to be sure and game the system.

I give everyone their individual roll.... It's tough though, because more party members means a much higher chance of spotting something even if the check is hard.  

For pathfinder I give each player 10 + their perception bonuses for "passive observation".  I avoid rolls all together.  There was a small amount of concern about this initially, but everyone came around.  This, of course, doesn't include search rolls, or actively trying to listen for an invisible enemy combatant or listening at a door... this is just used for things they are not yet aware of.  It works quite well.  I have always hated asking players to roll spot checks.... the very act gives away that there is something to see.  At one point (back in 3e) I started just randomly asking for spot checks and telling everyone that they didn't see anything, just so I could keep them guessing.  But  this took time away from the game.

Unfortunately I don't think 10+ will really work in DDN.  Although I guess I could calculate their average total from feats and skill dice, skill mastery etc.  and use that..... far less elegant though. 

Feb 27, 2013 -- 9:45PM, Lord_Malkov wrote:

both 4e and pathfinder combined certain skills that were too closely related

Search + Spot + Listen = Perception
Hide + Move Silenty = Stealth
Survival + Track = Survival
for pathfinder, Gather Information got combined into Diplomacy

To me, these were welcome changes.  Since they are perfectly okay with combining Diplomacy and Bluff into Persuasion, they clearly get the concept. 
There is no functional reason to separate spot and listen, and with the limited number of skills available for training, these seem liek reasonable changes. 

When did they combine Bluff and Diplomacy?  The packet I have has Bluff, Persuasion, Gather Rumor, Perform, Disguse, Handle Animal, and Intimidation listed as the skills that generally use Charisma as their used ability.  Personally, I would like to see Persuasion, Intimidation, and Gather Rumor combined into one skill called Persuasion.  Think about it, all three of them persuade people.  Persuasion (which is diplomacy) persuades people to be your friend, Intimidation persuades people to fear you, and Gather Rumor persuades people to tell you stuff reguardless of how they feel about you.  You just need to add flavor text.  (For example, Merry and Pippin used Persuade to become friends with the Ents by convincing them with clever word play.  Spike used Persuade to make the other vampires follow him by grabbing "The Annointed One," throwing him in a cage and forcing him into the sun.  Colombo used Persuade by informing the witness of a discrepancy in his story causing said witness to inform the dectective of where more clues might be obtained.)

Bluff on the other hand is something completely different.  Yes, you persuade people to believe you, but it has been usable in combat (feinght/cause distraction), and it is frequently used as a means of hiding your identity.

Also, I've always though Profession was pointles.

So here is, what I think should be the revised skill list.

Balance (possibly combined with Tumble and called Acrobatics)
Bluff (possibly combined with Disguise)
Climb
Disable Device
Escape Artist
Handle Animal
Heal
Knowledge (Arcana)
Knowledge (Dungeoneering)
Knowledge (Folklore)
Knowledge (Heraldry)
Knowledge (History [Combines History and 1/2 of Warfare... the historical part])
Knowledge (Religion [Combines Forbidden Lore and Religion])
Knowledge (Sciences [Combines Nature, Sciences, and 1/2 of Warfare... the technological part])
Perception
Perform
Persuade
Ride
Sense Motive
Slight of Hand
Sneak
Survival
Swim
Tumble (possibly combined with Balance)
Use Rope 

Feb 27, 2013 -- 1:57PM, Keendk wrote:

Spot/Listen:
What I was trying to say was: Do we need both listen and spot, does it make the game better than having just perception?

I think it makes the game better.

With both Listen and Spot, I can have a character with sharp hearing and relatively poor vision. With Perception, all of my senses are muddled together.

With the current system as you say, stealth is countered by either (not both) so only 1 skill is necessary there, either is equally powerful.
Then there are all the other things, do you notice the buzzards in the sky, do you hear the distant rumble of scared buffalo. Do we really need to have 2 skills for this? Why is it important how it was perceived that the lion killed a buffalo if the intent of the Wisdom check was to alert people to the presence of lions?

The Wisdom check used to determine whether the presence of lions is detected is a straight Wisdom check, which doesn't differentiate between the senses.

Also the game master calls for an [attribute] check and the players then ask if they can use their listen skill...if I say no ive given away that its a visual clue (and ofc vice versa), and have thus spoiled some of the mystery.

Don't say no. Just ignore the value displayed on the skill die.

that's my bad, they just renamed diplomacy....

I like your list.  I particularly like combining knowledge skills.
Profession.... yeah this is a tough one.  There are a few examples that I have used/seen that tended to work even before craft was taken out.  Profession: Sailor comes to mind.  It might seem like a good sailor would just be able to have good climb, use rope, drive and survival (nautical hazards are still natural hazards.  This also covers direction sense)

But there are other things like reading a map, estimating travel times over sea, knowledge of rough waters/reefs, dead-reckoning etc that could be placed into the profession skill for a sailor.

Profession: Soldier covers a lot of military tactics, logistics, general wages for mercenaries, knowledge of ranks and the chain of command, military protocol and lots of other useful things.

I actually love that the craft skill is gone.  Profession: Blacksmith covers crafting arms and armor but also metalurgy, knowledge of tempering methods, knowledge of cultural differences in the field (eg identifying the general origin of a weapon)

So now you can have profession: fletcher, alchemist, blacksmith, merchant, carpenter, stonemason etc.

Each craft skill is really a profession unto itself.  It always seemed silly to me that you could have craft alchemy, but ignore herbalism for example.  They seem pretty tied together.  I like profession, and I am glad that they have put more emphasis on it.

I didnt ask if you could distinguish the two, I asked if it was nesceserry to do so. For the X% who want to play deaf with super vision there is a Y% that just want a smooth game where the DM is not double checking and subtracting skill dice. If 1/10X > Y then maybe it is worth it. But from personal experience 1/11 of characters in my game is not audio/visually impaired.
 
 There is no such thing as a straight WIS check. If the player wants to roll in a skill he is entitled to ask if he can. Why would you deny him sensory input in the lion example? And if you allow him sensory input, why does it matter if its listen OR spot, rather than perception? The ninja tracker elf will EITHER see or hear the clues, you cant roll two skills at once...why? Or do I need to fudge that rule as well as a DM?
 
 So do we really need two skills just so a minority* can play with mild shortsightednes (not blind or with any stigmatism as you still get your D20 and your ability) for roleplaying puposes? Are there any mechanical benefits?
 

 *I think its safe to assume its a minority, and my guess is that it is rather tiny as well. The only times Ive seen people in dnd have either/or of listen and spot is when they have mechanically forced in to it....and THAT is limiting roleplaying.

Feb 27, 2013 -- 6:44PM, Uchawi wrote:

Groups checks would be a good tool for the DM when rolling in secret to increase the odds of success. But for the party, if they fail, then they will want individual rolls just to be sure and game the system.

What you could do is take the best skill die of all the PCs, the highest appropriate attribute modifier, and roll with advantage for an overall group check.  Of course you'd want to add in any specials to that, like if there's a rogue, roll 2 skill dice and take the highest; if a PC has Skill Focus for the skill, then any roll under 10 would become a 10.  I don't know what you'd do if a character had Skill Supremacy, but I suppose you could roll 3d20 and take the highest, if you were really feeling generous.

If you use the forum's 'quote' feature, the people you're in discussion with will be alerted that someone has responded to something they've said.

Feb 28, 2013 -- 12:32AM, Keendk wrote:

I didnt ask if you could distinguish the two, I asked if it was nesceserry to do so. For the X% who want to play deaf with super vision there is a Y% that just want a smooth game where the DM is not double checking and subtracting skill dice. If 1/10X > Y then maybe it is worth it. But from personal experience 1/11 of characters in my game is not audio/visually impaired.

You're using hyperbole to shoot down a point that was never made.

No one has asserted that they desire to play a sensory-impaired character. I submitted that it is not without reason that the archetypal archer would have keen eyes without having equally keen ears.
 

There is no such thing as a straight WIS check. If the player wants to roll in a skill he is entitled to ask if he can. Why would you deny him sensory input in the lion example? And if you allow him sensory input, why does it matter if its listen OR spot, rather than perception? The ninja tracker elf will EITHER see or hear the clues, you cant roll two skills at once...why? Or do I need to fudge that rule as well as a DM?

You misunderstand the rules. There is ONLY a straight Wisdom check, which a player may then modify with the application of an applicable skill (if and only if they happen to be trained in one).
 

So do we really need two skills just so a minority* can play with mild shortsightednes (not blind or with any stigmatism as you still get your D20 and your ability) for roleplaying puposes? Are there any mechanical benefits?

We need two skills to further enrich our storytelling. Our narrative is far more dynamic than wholesale 'notice' as a trained skill. There are countless examples where there is no opportunity to see, only to hear, and vice versa.

Ultimately, the elf has Advantage with their senses; able to roll once for Listen and once for Spot (if the narrative dictates that a sneaking creature is at risk of being both seen and heard).
 

*I think its safe to assume its a minority, and my guess is that it is rather tiny as well. The only times Ive seen people in dnd have either/or of listen and spot is when they have mechanically forced in to it....and THAT is limiting roleplaying.

You've never witnessed a scenario where a hidden creature has total cover (rendering them impossible to see)?

You've never witnessed a scenario where a skulking creature is using Silence to muffle all noise (rendering them impossible to hear)?

There are infinite examples where these skills may be employed separate from each other...

Differentiation affords me the opportunity to define my capability more finely. You don't see the same opportunity.

Writing from my phone it doesnt really like quotes :p I use the email me function to get updated.
 
 We want two different things I think. You want a narative (gurps as the extreme example) very detailed skill system with rules for different senses. I want boardgame like streamlined skills with wide uses for each skill. Each of us think the opposite is non productive for roleplaying or the mechanical game.

I understand the rules perfectly. DM asks for an atribute check, players ask if they can use a relevant skill, DM says yes or no (p1 background and skills). Hence no straight checks that players cant ask if they can use skills on. Dm calls for one such contest the player must chose wich skill to use...he does not get two rolls from what I can read, you might be able to guide me to where you read that? 

I cant have made myself clear enough: Ive not seen anyone in dnd3.5 with access to BOTH listen and spot deliberately take only listen to create a puposefully sensory lopsided character. That might happen in your games all the time.

As a side note I think its incrrdibly rude to accuse other of using logical falacies or manipulative retoric and then ignore what point they were trying to make. Its arrogant and just plain counter productive to any constructive discussion. Please keep the clevernes in check

Feb 28, 2013 -- 6:08AM, mrpopstar wrote:

If you use the forum's 'quote' feature, the people you're in discussion with will be alerted that someone has responded to something they've said.

Feb 28, 2013 -- 12:32AM, Keendk wrote:

I didnt ask if you could distinguish the two, I asked if it was nesceserry to do so. For the X% who want to play deaf with super vision there is a Y% that just want a smooth game where the DM is not double checking and subtracting skill dice. If 1/10X > Y then maybe it is worth it. But from personal experience 1/11 of characters in my game is not audio/visually impaired.

You're using hyperbole to shoot down a point that was never made.

No one has asserted that they desire to play a sensory-impaired character. I submitted that it is not without reason that the archetypal archer would have keen eyes without having equally keen ears.
 

There is no such thing as a straight WIS check. If the player wants to roll in a skill he is entitled to ask if he can. Why would you deny him sensory input in the lion example? And if you allow him sensory input, why does it matter if its listen OR spot, rather than perception? The ninja tracker elf will EITHER see or hear the clues, you cant roll two skills at once...why? Or do I need to fudge that rule as well as a DM?

You misunderstand the rules. There is ONLY a straight Wisdom check, which a player may then modify with the application of an applicable skill (if and only if they happen to be trained in one).
 

So do we really need two skills just so a minority* can play with mild shortsightednes (not blind or with any stigmatism as you still get your D20 and your ability) for roleplaying puposes? Are there any mechanical benefits?

We need two skills to further enrich our storytelling. Our narrative is far more dynamic than wholesale 'notice' as a trained skill. There are countless examples where there is no opportunity to see, only to hear, and vice versa.

Ultimately, the elf has Advantage with their senses; able to roll once for Listen and once for Spot (if the narrative dictates that a sneaking creature is at risk of being both seen and heard).
 

*I think its safe to assume its a minority, and my guess is that it is rather tiny as well. The only times Ive seen people in dnd have either/or of listen and spot is when they have mechanically forced in to it....and THAT is limiting roleplaying.

You've never witnessed a scenario where a hidden creature has total cover (rendering them impossible to see)?

You've never witnessed a scenario where a skulking creature is using Silence to muffle all noise (rendering them impossible to hear)?

There are infinite examples where these skills may be employed separate from each other...

Differentiation affords me the opportunity to define my capability more finely. You don't see the same opportunity.

From what's been posted in this thread, it seems Keendk and I have similar views on this. 

I see benefits in differentiation, but I'm not sure that those benefits outweigh the cost in complexity.  Is it possible that rolling closely related skills up into fewer skills would make for quicker, easier play, allowing for more fun in the process.  This has already been done with sneak, so that the sneaker isn't effectively at disadvantage while trying to sneak, yet what you propose effectively keeps the sneaker at a disadvantage because you aren't using a single perception skill roll.  And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but maybe it could be done better.  Is there another way to get to the differentiation you want besides having two different skills requiring two different skill rolls?  Some game systems have skill specialization, which makes a character better at a more focused part of a skill, while every other part of a skill is at some baseline ability, unless the character has multiple specializations (or concentrations).  I don't know if that's possible in DDN without overcomplicating it, but if it is, perhaps as an advanced rule, maybe that would give you the differentiation you want while giving those who want a more streamlined game what they want.

And I think that's what's being debated here: not whether or not you should get what you want, but whether or not it is worthwhile to streamline the skills for those who want it simpler, and how to make it work for those who don't.  And trust me, I want options!  Maybe there will come a time when I want a character who can hear a whisper originating on the dark side of the moon from his undersea fortress, while he can't see well enough to read, but right now I want a very quick, very efficient rule-set that can do a good enough job modelling the characters my group wants to play in the limited amount of time we have together.

Feb 28, 2013 -- 6:33AM, Keendk wrote:

Writing from my phone it doesnt really like quotes :p I use the email me function to get updated.
 
We want two different things I think. You want a narative (gurps as the extreme example) very detailed skill system with rules for different senses. I want boardgame like streamlined skills with wide uses for each skill. Each of us think the opposite is non productive for roleplaying or the mechanical game.

I don't think that the opposite of what I want is non-productive for roleplaying or the mechanical game. 

I understand the rules perfectly. DM asks for an atribute check, players ask if they can use a relevant skill, DM says yes or no (p1 background and skills). Hence no straight checks that players cant ask if they can use skills on. Dm calls for one such contest the player must chose wich skill to use...he does not get two rolls from what I can read, you might be able to guide me to where you read that?

The game assumes judicious employement of the Rule of Reason.

I cant have made myself clear enough: Ive not seen anyone in dnd3.5 with access to BOTH listen and spot deliberately take only listen to create a puposefully sensory lopsided character. That might happen in your games all the time.

Does it not make sense that not all senses are equal? Does it not make further sense that it doesn't matter which one you invest in? The character with exceptional hearing has the same chance to notice a sneaking creature that the character with exceptional sight does; all things being equal. In the event that the narrative dictates finer points, we can better determine your ability to notice (if it's even possible to see him, or hear him, etc.).

As a side note I think its incrrdibly rude to accuse other of using logical falacies or manipulative retoric and then ignore what point they were trying to make. Its arrogant and just plain counter productive to any constructive discussion. Please keep the clevernes in check

Turning 'I can have a character with sharp hearing and relatively poor vision' into '1/11 of characters in my game is not audio/visually impaired' is a huge jump that is blatantly manipulative leverage used to prove a point. Having vision that is poor in relation to exceptional hearing is not visual impairment.

Or maybe not.

Feb 28, 2013 -- 6:41AM, Another_Rules_Lawyer wrote:

From what's been posted in this thread, it seems Keendk and I have similar views on this. 

I see benefits in differentiation, but I'm not sure that those benefits outweigh the cost in complexity.  Is it possible that rolling closely related skills up into fewer skills would make for quicker, easier play, allowing for more fun in the process.  This has already been done with sneak, so that the sneaker isn't effectively at disadvantage while trying to sneak, yet what you propose effectively keeps the sneaker at a disadvantage because you aren't using a single perception skill roll.  And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but maybe it could be done better.  Is there another way to get to the differentiation you want besides having two different skills requiring two different skill rolls?  Some game systems have skill specialization, which makes a character better at a more focused part of a skill, while every other part of a skill is at some baseline ability, unless the character has multiple specializations (or concentrations).  I don't know if that's possible in DDN without overcomplicating it, but if it is, perhaps as an advanced rule, maybe that would give you the differentiation you want while giving those who want a more streamlined game what they want.

And I think that's what's being debated here: not whether or not you should get what you want, but whether or not it is worthwhile to streamline the skills for those who want it simpler, and how to make it work for those who don't.  And trust me, I want options!  Maybe there will come a time when I want a character who can hear a whisper originating on the dark side of the moon from his undersea fortress, while he can't see well enough to read, but right now I want a very quick, very efficient rule-set that can do a good enough job modelling the characters my group wants to play in the limited amount of time we have together.

The goal-post has moved from redundancy (which is the premise of the thread's original post), to efficiency. I moved solely to point out that the skills are not redundant, but there is an insistence to discuss their efficiency, which is a wholly separate issue.

Hey,

I deleted the stuff about the self deleted post so there wouldn't be any confusion in the future.

Carry on.

Monica

Feb 28, 2013 -- 7:57AM, mrpopstar wrote:

Feb 28, 2013 -- 6:41AM, Another_Rules_Lawyer wrote:

From what's been posted in this thread, it seems Keendk and I have similar views on this. 

I see benefits in differentiation, but I'm not sure that those benefits outweigh the cost in complexity.  Is it possible that rolling closely related skills up into fewer skills would make for quicker, easier play, allowing for more fun in the process.  This has already been done with sneak, so that the sneaker isn't effectively at disadvantage while trying to sneak, yet what you propose effectively keeps the sneaker at a disadvantage because you aren't using a single perception skill roll.  And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but maybe it could be done better.  Is there another way to get to the differentiation you want besides having two different skills requiring two different skill rolls?  Some game systems have skill specialization, which makes a character better at a more focused part of a skill, while every other part of a skill is at some baseline ability, unless the character has multiple specializations (or concentrations).  I don't know if that's possible in DDN without overcomplicating it, but if it is, perhaps as an advanced rule, maybe that would give you the differentiation you want while giving those who want a more streamlined game what they want.

And I think that's what's being debated here: not whether or not you should get what you want, but whether or not it is worthwhile to streamline the skills for those who want it simpler, and how to make it work for those who don't.  And trust me, I want options!  Maybe there will come a time when I want a character who can hear a whisper originating on the dark side of the moon from his undersea fortress, while he can't see well enough to read, but right now I want a very quick, very efficient rule-set that can do a good enough job modelling the characters my group wants to play in the limited amount of time we have together.

The goal-post has moved from redundancy (which is the premise of the thread's original post), to efficiency. I moved solely to point out that the skills are not redundant, but there is an insistence to discuss their efficiency, which is a wholly separate issue.

I guess I was mistaken that the goal of eliminating redundancy was to increase effeciency in this case.  So, what I've really been arguing for is a reduction in safety.

mrpopstar,

I understand your proposal and point, but it seems to not be keeping in theme with the rest of the skills changes. And the question of redundancy was also tied to efficiency in the rules. They are trying to reorganize the skill sets, but seem to have these hold-outs from 3.x regarding specific skills, that should be done away with in my opinion as several other systems have learned from.

The real question I have, in general terms, is does this serve a benefit to the game's atmosphere? Having spot and listen seperate seems to offer no benefit to the system in my opinion, much in the same way ride and drive serve no benefit to the game being seperate. Which if I read right, is the focal point of Keendk's replies.

The request to the general audience from me is why should this be done. It seems incongruous to the rest of the system. There's duplication and unnecessary divisions in the skills descriptions.

Persuasion and intimidation are the same exact description but from a different prospective. Why can't the player determine their method instead of the game breaking it apart? The system feels incomplete and wrong to me.

I had this argument with a friend a few years back.

He believes that having a multitude of skills (in that case GURPS older edition) helps to define what a char is good at and not good at. In the system I needed 6+ skills to basically be able to be a camera man. 
 
 I believe that havinv fewer skills (dnd) doesnt hold me back as much, I can take one skill to catch them all ( in this example proffesion) and that defined me.

 We both believe in defining the character. Just not the mechanical how.

I think gamewise many skills gets in the way. And if for mechanical reasons (limit on 4 skills for instance) it takes my friend one skill to achieve his concept (master sneaker) I would feel a bit cheated to have to spend 3 for mine (master perciever). He can then spend 3 more skills to define other things he can do. I have 1 skill to do so.

Me and my friend nevervagreed on this by the way. He wanted what he was good at also to symbolize what he wasnt good at. Just like the spot/listen/search vs perception above, the only reason to have them as 3 is to be able NOT to chose one of them. Its a question of what you want the system to portray I guess.

Mar 1, 2013 -- 3:33PM, LKD wrote:

mrpopstar,

I understand your proposal and point, but it seems to not be keeping in theme with the rest of the skills changes. And the question of redundancy was also tied to efficiency in the rules. They are trying to reorganize the skill sets, but seem to have these hold-outs from 3.x regarding specific skills, that should be done away with in my opinion as several other systems have learned from.

What is the theme of the rest of the skill changes?

The real question I have, in general terms, is does this serve a benefit to the game's atmosphere? Having spot and listen seperate seems to offer no benefit to the system in my opinion, much in the same way ride and drive serve no benefit to the game being seperate. Which if I read right, is the focal point of Keendk's replies.

I have submitted numerous ways in which having them separate benefits the game's atmosphere. Talamare submitted an example of how combining them is damaging to the game's atmosphere. Keendk linked to another thread that contains a handful of submissions that make a case for keeping them separate, as well.

These submissions are being ignored in favor of already solidified opinions. We can agree to disagree, or you can make a case for them being combined that has more debatable substance than claiming redudancy. -- Offer scenarios and show us how collapsing differentiation is beneficial to the game.

The request to the general audience from me is why should this be done. It seems incongruous to the rest of the system. There's duplication and unnecessary divisions in the skills descriptions.

Persuasion and intimidation are the same exact description but from a different prospective. Why can't the player determine their method instead of the game breaking it apart? The system feels incomplete and wrong to me.

The issue is one of approach. It occurs to me that you are viewing skills as a measure of general capability, when they only serve to describe aspects of exceptional talent or education. Your ability scores mean far more than your skill trianing. A highly perceptive character is defined by his Wisdom and Intelligence, not his skill choices.

Someone said my name, thus I appear!

I on the fence on this issue because I want both
I want storytelling possibilities and I want a streamlined gameplay

I felt 4e was perfectly mechanical, but at the same time I felt it has become a bit TOO mechanical
At the same time I dread returning to 3.5 skill system, We need to streamline as much as possible without gutting it completly

Tho I feel everyone already realizes this


On another note that is very important for me, Intimidate should NOT be converged into Persuasion, if all else fails toss Intimidate into Strength!

Mar 3, 2013 -- 5:55PM, Talamare wrote:

Someone said my name, thus I appear!

Like a genie!

I on the fence on this issue because I want both
I want storytelling possibilities and I want a streamlined gameplay

I felt 4e was perfectly mechanical, but at the same time I felt it has become a bit TOO mechanical
At the same time I dread returning to 3.5 skill system, We need to streamline as much as possible without gutting it completly

Tho I feel everyone already realizes this

In 5E, all tasks are resolved using ability checks, with skill training modifying the roll.
In 3E and 4E, all tasks were resolved using skill checks, with ability scores modifying the roll.

The difference is nuanced, but it changes everything.

We've gained the narrative richness of differentiation, as well as the streamlined efficiency of pared-down mechanics. 

On another note that is very important for me, Intimidate should NOT be converged into Persuasion, if all else fails toss Intimidate into Strength!

Depending upon the narrative, and the description of your character's actions, you could couple any ability with your skill in intimidation.

You could menace with your physical might (Strength), make a convincing threat (Charisma), outsmart systematically with an ultimatum (Intelligence), etc. -- Skills are not tied to ability scores.

Ref: "-- Offer scenarios and show us how collapsing differentiation is beneficial to the game."
Mr. PopStar,

Yes, good point. Sorry I've been absent from the internet for a few days.

Let me start from here then. I'm a professional cowgirl. I ride the range, play on my guitar, russle cattle or drive them depending on my hat color, can lasso a rope around calf to bring it in for questioning, and can drive a wagon through open terrain and across rivers without any trouble.

What skills should I have to do my job? While they are not dependent on having the skill itself, still, I would have unquestionable greater skill at these things then someone in the caravan on their way to California who's just along for the ride.

Myself, as a cowgirl would have Profession Cowgirl, Use Rope, Ride, Animal Handling, Drive, Perform Guitar, and Survival. This seems like a lot of skills to do my job, and this is my prospective.

Now say that Profession Cowgirl would automatically include talent in using ropes, which is how I feel the rules are geared. If that is the case, when would you not have use rope tied to another skill? If you are a professional sailor, you would know rigging and tying down loads to the desk. If you were a mountain climber, you would know ropes for safety, climbing, attaching them to outcroppings, bringing up supplies, etc. There are lots of examples for reasons that use rope is already covered by another skill, but I can't fathom a reason that it should be separate and on its own.

This ties into my view on Drive and Ride, Intimidate and Persuasion, History and Folklore/Heraldry... But I want to keep this simple.

Maybe if you would, I would like to understand what I'm missing from your understanding.

Mar 4, 2013 -- 4:00PM, LKD wrote:

Maybe if you would, I would like to understand what I'm missing from your understanding.

Skills reflect areas of expertise, not areas of general capability.

Your cowgirl's ability to use a rope, ride a horse, handle an animal, drive a cart, perform with a guitar, and survive on the plains are defines by your contribution to the narrative and adjudicated by her ability scores. Skill training in any of these specific areas is indicative of raw talent or education above and beyond her general capability as a cowgirl.

Using your skill die is specific to certain tasks, not an expression of broad competency.

Your cowgirl employs skill training when performing a task related to one of her exceptional skills, not when performing any and all actions related to her story within the narrative. As such, differentiation better leverages the narrative by allowing specific descriptions to evoke specific ways in which our characters exceed expectation.

You do not gain passive checks by virtue of being present, you only gain a check when engaging with the narrative and taking action. As such, skill training is explicitly defined in a way that augments the story that we're telling; bringing it to life; not merely to modify any and all checks we make mechanically.

Wait, I didn't follow that quite right.

I am treating them as active skills instead of passive skills. I'm in full agreement with passive checks being solely off the player's ability score no matter the occasion (baring feats).

I believe that a cowgirl must be trained to accomplish the job expectations in the post, and can/must do their job better than anyone who is untrained. I don't think there is argument there?

If you were to follow the guidelines for DDN, a cowgirl would use about 5 or 6 skills to match what they would be in a real life setting. While I know that can be possible with the right selections, I feel that this doesn't need to be so. A simple commoner should be a capable rancher without much alteration to the basics.

You could consolidate use rope and make it intrinsic to professions or other skills. You could consolidate ride and drive and that would give you a cowboy and cowgirl in keeping with the systems streamlined design intentions. In my view, you could have 3 skills to encapsulate their capabilities at the job (Survival, Ride, Profession Cowboy/Cowgirl), yet afford an extra skill choice to vary their expertise from Guitar, to Cook, to Tracker...

Similarly you could change my example to a fisherman, or a ship captain, a town guard, there's more examples I can think of... And find a similar situation. Each has a certain skill-set they should have to characterize their beginnings, yet there should be enough room for them to be an expert in an area that sets them apart from the others.

Really appreciate your time, it's quite helpful. And thoughts positive or negative are welcomed.

Mar 4, 2013 -- 7:15PM, LKD wrote:

Wait, I didn't follow that quite right.

I am treating them as active skills instead of passive skills. I'm in full agreement with passive checks being solely off the player's ability score no matter the occasion (baring feats).

I believe that a cowgirl must be trained to accomplish the job expectations in the post, and can/must do their job better than anyone who is untrained. I don't think there is argument there?

If you were to follow the guidelines for DDN, a cowgirl would use about 5 or 6 skills to match what they would be in a real life setting. While I know that can be possible with the right selections, I feel that this doesn't need to be so. A simple commoner should be a capable rancher without much alteration to the basics.

You could consolidate use rope and make it intrinsic to professions or other skills. You could consolidate ride and drive and that would give you a cowboy and cowgirl in keeping with the systems streamlined design intentions. In my view, you could have 3 skills to encapsulate their capabilities at the job (Survival, Ride, Profession Cowboy/Cowgirl), yet afford an extra skill choice to vary their expertise from Guitar, to Cook, to Tracker...

Similarly you could change my example to a fisherman, or a ship captain, a town guard, there's more examples I can think of... And find a similar situation. Each has a certain skill-set they should have to characterize their beginnings, yet there should be enough room for them to be an expert in an area that sets them apart from the others.

Really appreciate your time, it's quite helpful. And thoughts positive or negative are welcomed.

I'm trying to evidence that the skills are specific because the way in which we describe our characters, their actions, and the tasks they undertake is specific.

It occurs to me that what you're after are more skills to capture what you'd like to accomplish with your background. Collapsing differentiation is a less than intuitive way to accomplish that.

Ultimately, the way the rules are currently presented, you are well within your right to apply training in Profession (Cowgirl) to the check called for to tie up a prisoner. If your group is in common agreement, Profession (Cowgirl) could apply to any ability check you want it to. You can apply it to checks for riding, corralling, surviving, whathaveyou. -- For everyone else whose imagination isn't captured by the Profession skill, or whose profession may not cover other skills (Profession (Cobbler) wouldn't really cover Use Rope), there's alternate options to defining our characters. 

I'm in favor of the more consolidated sensory skills. I like Persuade as a combo of Bluff/Diplomacy, but at that point I do start questioning if Intimidate really deserves to be on its own. (I'm of the opinion that Intimidate is easily split between Str or Cha, based on the action taken). That's a tricky point. There ARE differences between those three things, and the skill start becoming a single catch-all "social skills" skill at that point, which may or may not be good for the game. I also like track as part of survival. 

Mar 5, 2013 -- 4:28PM, Razorstorm wrote:

I'm in favor of the more consolidated sensory skills. I like Persuade as a combo of Bluff/Diplomacy, but at that point I do start questioning if Intimidate really deserves to be on its own. (I'm of the opinion that Intimidate is easily split between Str or Cha, based on the action taken). That's a tricky point. There ARE differences between those three things, and the skill start becoming a single catch-all "social skills" skill at that point, which may or may not be good for the game. I also like track as part of survival. 

In favor of the more consolidated sensory skills why?

How does consolidation benefit the game?

I re-read this thread in order to refocus and regain a sense of what I'm arguing, and I think I've narrowed down a contributing aspect of the issue...

Feb 27, 2013 -- 1:57PM, Keendk wrote:

Then there are all the other things, do you notice the buzzards in the sky, do you hear the distant rumble of scared buffalo. Do we really need to have 2 skills for this? Why is it important how it was perceived that the lion killed a buffalo if the intent of the Wisdom check was to alert people to the presence of lions?

Given the current iteration of the playtest, you do not notice the buzzards in the sky or hear the distant rumble of scared buffalo because you did not spend an action to do so.

If the Dungeon Master feels as though it adds to the narrative for you to notice the buzzards or hear the buffalo, he will make it a point to share it with you.

'Passive checks' are not a thing -- they don't exist.

Also the game master calls for an [attribute] check and the players then ask if they can use their listen skill...if I say no ive given away that its a visual clue (and ofc vice versa), and have thus spoiled some of the mystery.

This is what I'm refering to whenever I say that you're misunderstanding the rules.

'Skill checks' are no longer a thing -- they don't exist. (And they haven't been 'rebranded' as ability checks.)

The Dungeon Master does not call for an ability check unless you, the player, have already described a course of action and made a case for the use of a skill. Take a second look at the description of how to use your skill die: During play, you describe what your character is doing, and if the Dungeon Master decides that a check is necessary, you make the check using the ability that the DM specifies. You determine which of your skills applies to the situation, and then announce to the DM that you have that skill and are applying it to the check. (Backgrounds and Skills 1)

The Dungeon Master doesn't call for an ability check to see if you notice a tripwire while you're sauntering down a hallway. Given the current iteration of the playtest, you would saunter right into the tripwire by virtue of your not paying attention or spending an action to search for traps.

The skills are specific because they offer key descriptives for engaging with the narrative -- they're action terms; you use them.

--

Given the nuanced changes in the current system of skill-use (compared to previous editions), how does consolidation benefit the game?

Mar 5, 2013 -- 8:47PM, mrpopstar wrote:

Mar 5, 2013 -- 4:28PM, Razorstorm wrote:

I'm in favor of the more consolidated sensory skills. I like Persuade as a combo of Bluff/Diplomacy, but at that point I do start questioning if Intimidate really deserves to be on its own. (I'm of the opinion that Intimidate is easily split between Str or Cha, based on the action taken). That's a tricky point. There ARE differences between those three things, and the skill start becoming a single catch-all "social skills" skill at that point, which may or may not be good for the game. I also like track as part of survival. 

In favor of the more consolidated sensory skills why?

How does consolidation benefit the game?

I'm of the opinion that those separate skills don't deserve to stand on their own and only serve to dilute skill points. 

DM: You walk in to a room, there is a door on the other side of the room and an alter in the middle there might be something else in there..

 Players: We walk up to the alter and do a int based spot check to search the alter
 
 DM: You forgot to make a spot for monsters so you provoke OA as you pass the 8 Lions skulking in the room, really sorry but its an action now to use your senses. Oh and there was a trap in the corridor that aleted the dragon but since you didnt ask if you had sprung any traps I didnt alert you to the wailing alarm that went off when you fell over the tripwire. Its not my fault, really sorry but Im following the RAW in next.
--------------
 
 Its purposfully an extreme to say that the game probably would benefit from being less rigid in terms of who calls for what check. I readup on skill use on p1 of skills document and by RAW mrpopstar is abbsolutely rignt in all he says. I dont agree with that way to run a game but he IS right.
 Sorry for typos. Im in a bumpy train.

In my reading of the DM Guidelines, it looks to me like the DM can and should call for an ability check when the players try to do something that would require a check of some sort.  So calling for a spot and/or listen check (or just a wisdom check) when characters are in iminent danger of lions isn't out of the question.

Wouldn't the lions have to make an apposed Dex vs Wis check to hide anyway?

Eh, whatever.  The PCs deserve to get lioned - they're too focused on searching an alter when they should have taken a glance around the room first.

Mar 6, 2013 -- 12:51AM, Keendk wrote:

DM: You walk in to a room, there is a door on the other side of the room and an alter in the middle there might be something else in there..

 Players: We walk up to the alter and do a int based spot check to search the alter
 
 DM: You forgot to make a spot for monsters so you provoke OA as you pass the 8 Lions skulking in the room, really sorry but its an action now to use your senses. Oh and there was a trap in the corridor that aleted the dragon but since you didnt ask if you had sprung any traps I didnt alert you to the wailing alarm that went off when you fell over the tripwire. Its not my fault, really sorry but Im following the RAW in next.
--------------
 
 Its purposfully an extreme to say that the game probably would benefit from being less rigid in terms of who calls for what check. I readup on skill use on p1 of skills document and by RAW mrpopstar is abbsolutely rignt in all he says. I dont agree with that way to run a game but he IS right.
 Sorry for typos. Im in a bumpy train.

I would love it

Players have become complacent with the "on rails" hand holding scenarios often bring

However, You were slightly unfair
You told them they could see an alter, meaning you activated their vision for them

You should not have even mentioned the alter

Mar 5, 2013 -- 10:44PM, Razorstorm wrote:

I'm of the opinion that those separate skills don't deserve to stand on their own and only serve to dilute skill points.

There's no such thing as skill points in this edition.

Mar 6, 2013 -- 12:51AM, Keendk wrote:

Its purposfully an extreme to say that the game probably would benefit from being less rigid in terms of who calls for what check. I readup on skill use on p1 of skills document and by RAW mrpopstar is abbsolutely rignt in all he says. I dont agree with that way to run a game but he IS right.
 Sorry for typos. Im in a bumpy train.

LOL At least we've pinpointed the reason why we've both been feeling like we're pounding our heads against each other to no avail of understanding.

The reason why I stand behind the current implementation of skill-use is because it refocuses the narrative. It requires that you engage with the story in order to affect it. The collaborative aspect of building something together is renewed, in lieu of dice and adjudication mechanizing the world we're adventuring in.

Mar 6, 2013 -- 4:19AM, Tiima wrote:

In my reading of the DM Guidelines, it looks to me like the DM can and should call for an ability check when the players try to do something that would require a check of some sort.  So calling for a spot and/or listen check (or just a wisdom check) when characters are in iminent danger of lions isn't out of the question.

Wouldn't the lions have to make an apposed Dex vs Wis check to hide anyway?

Eh, whatever.  The PCs deserve to get lioned - they're too focused on searching an alter when they should have taken a glance around the room first.

The ability contest to maintain their stealth would only be inititated if the player characters surveyed the room. Otherwise, they're simply hidden -- it's an automatic success.

The game assumes competence. If you duck into a hiding place, you're hidden (assuming no one saw you do it). You remain hidden until someone performs an action to find you or reveal your hiding place.

Mar 6, 2013 -- 6:10AM, Talamare wrote:

I would love it

Players have become complacent with the "on rails" hand holding scenarios often bring

Evil! 

Mar 5, 2013 -- 10:44PM, Razorstorm wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I'm of the opinion that those separate skills don't deserve to stand on their own and only serve to dilute skill points.

This is my view as well, ignoring the poor wording. By cutting down on the number of skills a player has, they need to be more general to justify the "expense" on the player's part and allow the party to be balanced so they can handle the conflicts that come their way. And by being more general in scope, there's more time playing.

While I can see now that my views don't match the general design of the skill system, I can't help but feel disapointed. But I do like the bonus dice approach a lot. I think it's a fantastic direction.

Thank you Mr. PopStar for all your replies.

Don't forget though, that you don't have to roll a check to perceive things that are obvious.  Now - six lions might be hiding in a room, and if you don't search for signs of them, you won't even get a chance to find them.  BUT that means you're in a room with not only an altar - but also at least six hiding places large enough to conceal lions.  Whatever is providing that cover (or concealment, if the room is pitch black, or fogged over) should be obviously visible as part of the room.
  A DM that doesn't mention the six alcoves at the sides of the room, or doesn't tell the players that the chamber is pitch black, is not giving them the opportunity to explore and interact with the world - and will of course end up with players who didn't bother to search a room they assumed to be as stark as the DM's description. 

@mrpopstar
"There's no such thing as skill points in this edition."

Forgive me, I meant skill "slots" or choices. A character that should have keen senses has to devote 2 or 3 skill choices to actually accomplish that (listen, spot, maybe search). I think that's over-blown.

I can understand search being separate, but Listen and Spot should be combined. Likewise I think climb and swim are similarly silly and should just be athletics, or something like that.

My concern boils down to this - when characters only get a handful of skill choices, those choices should be broad and meaningful, IMO.

Why can you understand search and spot being seperate?

Description of Search:
You search whenever you actively look around(5) for clues that point to a hidden object such as a trap(4) or a secret door(2), or a hint that might point to a person's or creatures passage through(3) or activity in an area(1)(3).

Description of Spot:
You use spot to notice a creature lying in ambush(1) ahead of you on the road, see signs of a thief(3) hiding in the shadows of an alley, or catch sight of a faint gleam of candlelight under a closed secret door(2).

SO
(1) to find an ambush you use spot and search
(2) to find a secret door you use both spot and search
(3) to find a thief you use both search and spot

So the only thing that search does that spot apearently doesnt do is:
(4) find hidden objects such as traps

What exactly is the justification to have two skills? That they are tied to different stats, nope as skills are not tied to stats any more. That one can find traps and the other cant...well why would I take spot when search does the same and more?
Maybe it is that Search is the skill to use for active looking and spot for passive (5). But the general use for skills define that there IS no passive skill, according to the skill document (there is un-specified references to an alternative way of doing it in the DMG, but dont know where that is).

Search and Spot ARE the same skills, they just havnt noticed it themselves yet. Its a remnant of a copy paste skill system as Ive outlined earlier in this topic. There is some that say that search is tactile awareness, but that is un-supported by the rules in any way.

Mar 7, 2013 -- 5:24AM, Keendk wrote:

Why can you understand search and spot being seperate?

Description of Search:
You search whenever you actively look around(5) for clues that point to a hidden object such as a trap(4) or a secret door(2), or a hint that might point to a person's or creatures passage through(3) or activity in an area(1)(3).

Description of Spot:
You use spot to notice a creature lying in ambush(1) ahead of you on the road, see signs of a thief(3) hiding in the shadows of an alley, or catch sight of a faint gleam of candlelight under a closed secret door(2).

SO
(1) to find an ambush you use spot and search
(2) to find a secret door you use both spot and search
(3) to find a thief you use both search and spot

So the only thing that search does that spot apearently doesnt do is:
(4) find hidden objects such as traps

What exactly is the justification to have two skills? That they are tied to different stats, nope as skills are not tied to stats any more. That one can find traps and the other cant...well why would I take spot when search does the same and more?
Maybe it is that Search is the skill to use for active looking and spot for passive (5). But the general use for skills define that there IS no passive skill, according to the skill document (there is un-specified references to an alternative way of doing it in the DMG, but dont know where that is).

Search and Spot ARE the same skills, they just havnt noticed it themselves yet. Its a remnant of a copy paste skill system as Ive outlined earlier in this topic. There is some that say that search is tactile awareness, but that is un-supported by the rules in any way.

And if we really need a skill break-down to allow for tactile awareness, why don't we just go with See, Hear, Feel, Taste, and Smell, to replace Listen, Search, and Spot?  Oh, and instead of Sneak, why not Hide, Move Silently, Move So As Not To Disturb The Air (probably a Monk only skill), and Neutralize Odor (not usable by the Barbarian)?

Mar 6, 2013 -- 3:49PM, LKD wrote:

While I can see now that my views don't match the general design of the skill system, I can't help but feel disapointed. But I do like the bonus dice approach a lot. I think it's a fantastic direction.

Thank you Mr. PopStar for all your replies.

No problem!

Mar 6, 2013 -- 10:30PM, HomebrewSetting wrote:

A DM that doesn't mention the six alcoves at the sides of the room, or doesn't tell the players that the chamber is pitch black, is not giving them the opportunity to explore and interact with the world - and will of course end up with players who didn't bother to search a room they assumed to be as stark as the DM's description. 

Spot on!

Mar 6, 2013 -- 11:28PM, Razorstorm wrote:

@mrpopstar "There's no such thing as skill points in this edition." Forgive me, I meant skill "slots" or choices. A character that should have keen senses has to devote 2 or 3 skill choices to actually accomplish that (listen, spot, maybe search). I think that's over-blown. I can understand search being separate, but Listen and Spot should be combined. Likewise I think climb and swim are similarly silly and should just be athletics, or something like that. My concern boils down to this - when characters only get a handful of skill choices, those choices should be broad and meaningful, IMO.

Listen and Spot succeed at two completely separate things.

The issue is that skill training represents exceptional ability -- they are indicative of places where you excel as a byproduct of your talent or education. Broadness would dilute the specialization that the current skill system intends to signify.

Your ability scores are broad and meaningful. Your skill training modifies capability in key areas.

Mar 7, 2013 -- 5:24AM, Keendk wrote:

Why can you understand search and spot being seperate?

Description of Search:
You search whenever you actively look around(5) for clues that point to a hidden object such as a trap(4) or a secret door(2), or a hint that might point to a person's or creatures passage through(3) or activity in an area(1)(3).

Description of Spot:
You use spot to notice a creature lying in ambush(1) ahead of you on the road, see signs of a thief(3) hiding in the shadows of an alley, or catch sight of a faint gleam of candlelight under a closed secret door(2).

SO
(1) to find an ambush you use spot and search
(2) to find a secret door you use both spot and search
(3) to find a thief you use both search and spot

So the only thing that search does that spot apearently doesnt do is:
(4) find hidden objects such as traps

What exactly is the justification to have two skills? That they are tied to different stats, nope as skills are not tied to stats any more. That one can find traps and the other cant...well why would I take spot when search does the same and more?
Maybe it is that Search is the skill to use for active looking and spot for passive (5). But the general use for skills define that there IS no passive skill, according to the skill document (there is un-specified references to an alternative way of doing it in the DMG, but dont know where that is).

Search and Spot ARE the same skills, they just havnt noticed it themselves yet. Its a remnant of a copy paste skill system as Ive outlined earlier in this topic. There is some that say that search is tactile awareness, but that is un-supported by the rules in any way.

I think that you are grossly oversimplifying, to the detriment of understanding.

Taken in full context...

The description of search states that "You use Search whenever you actively look around for clues that point to a hidden object, such as a trap or secret door, or hints that might point to a person’s or creature’s passage through or activity in an area." (Backgrounds and Skills 10)

The description of spot states that "You use Spot to notice creatures lying in ambush ahead of you on the road, see signs of a thief hiding in the shadows of an alley, or catch sight of a faint gleam of candlelight under a closed secret door." (Backgrounds and Skills 10)

The search skill is the Nancy Drew skill. You use it to modify ability checks made to rummage through desks, notice things out of the ordinary, pick up clues, discern that a device is rigged, and generally do sleuthy things.

The spot skill is the Scout skill. You use it to modify ability checks made when keeping watch, catching on to sleight of hand, recognizing things that can be seen, and measuring visual acuity.

...they are not the same thing.

The justification is clear. There may be overlap, depending upon one's understanding or utilization, but that speaks to the desire of some to have skills apply broadly moreso than it indicates that the skills fail to accomplish what they're intended to accomplish. 

Your quotes of the skills are word for word what I quoted from exactly the same source. Only difference is that I actually referenced to the words where as you made up new uses that arent mentioned in the current skill package.
 As per RAW you cannot use spot to keep watch or spot a pickpocket as they are active checks (your own words, if you cannot spot a lion you cannot spot a pickpocket) unless your character of course declares that he is using an action every 6 seconds he is in a crowd to spot for them.
 
 The lions in alter room was my rebelion to this "players have to actively declare everything" as I do not agree with that way of playing personally...but if that is what is written in the rules that is what they want us to test.

Mar 7, 2013 -- 2:06PM, Keendk wrote:

Your quotes of the skills are word for word what I quoted from exactly the same source. Only difference is that I actually referenced to the words where as you made up new uses that arent mentioned in the current skill package.
 As per RAW you cannot use spot to keep watch or spot a pickpocket as they are active checks (your own words, if you cannot spot a lion you cannot spot a pickpocket) unless your character of course declares that he is using an action every 6 seconds he is in a crowd to spot for them.

You didn't reference words, you butchered context in an effort to make a point. The descriptions, taken in their entirety, are very clear in how they are to be utilized within the narrative.

Saying that we have to use an action every 6 seconds in order to accomplish our shared story is... grandiose. A check made can apply to sweeping adjudications, and a night's watch is a solid example.

Keep watch: Drawing on my keen senses (spot), I scan the treeline for signs of movement.
At any time during my watch, the Dungeon Master would use that check to contest a creature's attempt to stealth past the treeline.

Spot a pickpocket: Drawing on my keen senses (spot), I keep a sharp eye on Lady Stark's beltpouch as we through the crowd.
At any time during our tour through the crowd, the Dungeon Master would use that check to contest a thief's attempt to stealthily pick Lady Stark's pocket.

We tell our stories, we reference the dice as a measurement of total outcome, or serve as a basis of comparison -- then we move on.

The lions in alter room was my rebelion to this "players have to actively declare everything" as I do not agree with that way of playing personally...but if that is what is written in the rules that is what they want us to test.

You seem not to agree with the intent to remove dice from the forefront of the game's experience.

I'm a huge fan of getting the dice out of my way.

What skill can you roll to find a secret door acording to the skills document? Same with creatures being active in an area, the activity being sneaking or hiding.
Not using prior version knowledge but only reading what the rules say: Both search and spot accomplishes the above. The rules mentions nothing about standing guard or other examples (that I of course know because I also played 3.5).
Can anyone mention an INT+spot theyve made? Or WIS+search? The reason they are so rare is because they are not 2 skills but one skill aplied with 2 stats.

Playing Microlite20 really prepares you better for playing Next than Next does with their clumsy "all stats can be used for everything, but not really cause here is the rigid 3.5 skill system you need to.combine it with"
Next atm would be so much better off with no skills than with an old fashioned recycled system. Its like fitting an oldsmobile tyre on to a modern sportscar.


 

"The search skill is the Nancy Drew skill. You use it to modify ability checks made to rummage through desks, notice things out of the ordinary, pick up clues, discern that a device is rigged, and generally do sleuthy things.

The spot skill is the Scout skill. You use it to modify ability checks made when keeping watch, catching on to sleight of hand, recognizing things that can be seen, and measuring visual acuity."

I'm agreeing with Mr PopStar here. Search and spot should be separate. You search through someone's clothes, you can't spot or listen. You search through a room for the secret button to open the trap door, or you search along the hallway for traps. While spotting could afford some of those actions, search is used enough in games that it deserves to be a separate skill.

I can see your point, Keendk, and I agree with the sentiment, but I think the game would be better served having the two separate. On the other-hand, there is no benefit to having many of the skills separated. They should be handled by the DM and player in game with colorful descriptions instead of throwback skill types.

"You seem not to agree with the intent to remove dice from the forefront of the game's experience.

I'm a huge fan of getting the dice out of my way. "

I believe that statement is blasphemous and you should be locked up. XD Half of the fun is dice rolling. That anticipation of luck gracing your action is an important part of DnD in any version. Without it, you are just free-form storytelling, and that has no where near the same level of excitement to me.

Mar 7, 2013 -- 3:18PM, Keendk wrote:

What skill can you roll to find a secret door acording to the skills document? Same with creatures being active in an area, the activity being sneaking or hiding.

You don't roll skills.

Not using prior version knowledge but only reading what the rules say: Both search and spot accomplishes the above. The rules mentions nothing about standing guard or other examples (that I of course know because I also played 3.5).

You can determine the existence of a secret door by visually noticing it (spot), uncovering the fact that people have passed through (track), recognizing that there is something fishy about the architecture (profession: carpenter), happening upon it (search), overhearing whispers on the other side (listen), and countless other ways.

There's more than one path towards engineering the same outcome -- what's the problem?

Can anyone mention an INT+spot theyve made? Or WIS+search? The reason they are so rare is because they are not 2 skills but one skill aplied with 2 stats.

I don't understand what you're saying.

The rules governing Intelligence state that "Intelligence describes your mental acuity, your education, and your ability to reason, recall information, and employ logic to overcome challenges and complications. You typically use Intelligence to remember an important fact, find clues to a puzzle, or cast an arcane spell." (How to Play 5) 

Take a second look at search: You use Search whenever you actively look around for clues that point to a hidden object, such as a trap or secret door, or hints that might point to a person’s or creature’s passage through or activity in an area. 

Search is sleuthy, and it makes perfect sense that the stat describing your mental acuity, ability to reason, and ability to find clues would most often apply to it.

The rules governing Wisdom state that "Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to your surroundings, representing general perceptiveness, intuition, insight, and other, less tangible senses. Wisdom is also important for understanding divine edicts and expectations." (How to Play 5)

Take a second look at spot: You use Spot to notice creatures lying in ambush ahead of you on the road, see signs of a thief hiding in the shadows of an alley, or catch sight of a faint gleam of candlelight under a closed secret door. 

Spot is perceptive, and it makes perfect sense that the stat describing how attuned you are to your surroundings, and your general perceptiveness would most often apply to it.

Playing Microlite20 really prepares you better for playing Next than Next does with their clumsy "all stats can be used for everything, but not really cause here is the rigid 3.5 skill system you need to.combine it with"
Next atm would be so much better off with no skills than with an old fashioned recycled system. Its like fitting an oldsmobile tyre on to a modern sportscar.

There is no 'rigid skill system' -- the game has never been so open and free-form with regard to its measurement of capability.

Mar 7, 2013 -- 4:27PM, LKD wrote:

I believe that statement is blasphemous and you should be locked up. XD Half of the fun is dice rolling. That anticipation of luck gracing your action is an important part of DnD in any version. Without it, you are just free-form storytelling, and that has no where near the same level of excitement to me.

LOL Rolling the dice is fun, and the randomness they bring to the game has its place, but I'm specifically addressing the fact that dice-emphasis is more of an obstacle than it is a boon.

The dice should only be employed when they are meaningful. The game of Dungeons & Dragons is a shared story first and foremost.

Getting slightly heated here.  :O

  There is a good case for making Listen, Search, and Spot into one skill (Perception), while there is also a case to be made for merging Swim and Climb (Athletics)...  When I first saw that they had been re-separated in the Skills document, my heart sank a little.  This is, however, because I have grown attached to the Skill Challenge, and to employing my characters' skills more broadly.
  Once I had a little time to adjust to the idea, however, I became more and more comfortable with it.

The 'overlap' that mrpopstar alluded to is part of the reason; despite the specificity of 'Listening', or 'Spotting', you don't need to have both Listen and Spot in order to detect a creeper in the dark.  Either skill can help you.  You don't have to 'waste' an extra skill and take both of them.  Either one makes you a perceptive character.

  In the end, what really won me over was when I considered the new (or, some might say old) direction play seems to be shifting toward.
  Exploration, interaction, combat, and other game aspects sharing the spotlight more equally.  THIS is the real argument for keeping Listen, Search, and Spot separate entities (Swim and Climb as well...).  When Combat is the sole focus of the game, it doesn't matter so much HOW you perceive your enemy - as long as you can find them, and keep them from getting the drop on you.  Similarly, when stony ridges, rushing water, cliffs and gaps over spiked pits adorn your battle mat, Athletics is the simplest way to reduce these obstacles to their most basic game element - difficult terrain.  No muss, no fuss.
 Kind of takes the role playing out of it, though.  If memory serves, the backgrounds typically offer a set of four skills.  If we allow very broadly applied skills, like 'Perception', 'Athletics', and 'Insight', they are applicable to so many situations that it kind of makes the other skills pale in comparison.
  The exploration part of the game is meant to be a much larger aspect in D&DNext - if you allow Perception to cover anything related to surveying an area, and Athletics to cover anything to do with actually navigating that area, then all you need is two skills and you've got your skill die bonus to virtually every exploration check.  All of a sudden that skill die seems less impressive, and more like something everyone should get to roll all the time.

  Well, it's already too late for a short, sweet post, so here's a bit more regarding skill 'redundancy'.
  To be perfectly honest, I'm of the opinion that Diplomacy ( I mean Persuade ), Bluff, and Intimidate aren't enough options for using skills to communicate with NPCs.  The way the new skill system works, it's very easy for DMs to plunk in or take out skills they feel would be useful in their campaigns.  In my campaign, I'll be dividing Persuade into 'Reason' and 'Appeal' - one for when you are making a logical case in your favour, and the other for when you are attempting to placate a creature via anything from begging to flattery.

  
   

Dont worry,  we are being very civilised here
 
 I very specifically said "what skill can you roll" as you DO roll skills in next as its a skill die, it wants to be rolled not gently put down. You are right that there is no skill CHECK, its an ability check where you "roll a skill" and add it. I know its a bugbear of yours so I tried to be specific in my language, dont really know how else to have worded it: "what skill can you roll when you roll an unspecified ability check" perhaps, but I think thats just spiltting hairs.
 
  I am a big fan of the ability system having been opened up so much, and that you roll int for searching and wisdom for spotting. I think its great and adds a huge degree of "openness" to the system as a whole. Go MM, youve got it right!
  How they expand on this with skills however is where the rigidnes sets in imo. To make any skill "usually/always rolled with X ability" is locking down all the goody openness we got from the ability system.

And that is where search/spot fails to add anything to the game as seperate entities. I want to find a trap by being aware of my souroundings I roll wisdom +search or spot. I want to find a trap by reasoning I roll Int+search or spot. The differentiation of the 2 skills comes in the stat being used and not from the skill it self. So as skills are specialities and being expert at something they should be able to be clearly defined completely unattached to a stat. They arent at the moment.
 search is reasoned organised finding of X
 spot is intuitive awarenes in finding of X
 

sorry my phone doesnt like long posts have to break it in to two.

 So search is the intelligent way of finding x and search the wisdom way. Therefore the skill is not open as it has been tied to an atribute.

 nice post and points mr homebrew setting will have to come back to you as my train is coming in

Indeed, the outlines of the Spot and Search skills seem to steer them very sharply towards being consistently used with Wisdom and Intelligence, respectively.  That could be a bit of an issue - but at the same time, most skills will tend toward one or two particular abilities most often, I would imagine.
  You can use Intelligence to try and reason the best route up a treacherous cliff, perhaps - and augment that with your Climb skill die - but in practice, the Climb skill die will probably still be applied to Strength checks more often than not.  And, you could also justify adding a Spot skill die, or a Search skill die to that same ability check (all 3 skills applicable assuming you are in a position where you can see various routes or aspects of the cliff ahead).

  The main issue seems to be that there is a great deal of prospective overlap between the two skills. I can see that, and I definitely agree that it is there - but there are also many prospective applications for each skill that do not so easily overlap, and many ways for other skills to overlap just as easily, and that's why I think they're valid as separate skills.
 You can see in the example above how a cunning player can create overlap between Search, Spot, and even Climb, given the right context.
 Yet - in the above example, if the cliff is largely invisible (covered by fog, perhaps), Search becomes a more viable option - as you can perhaps deduce the route most often travelled.  In the above example, if the cliffside is covered in a fresh layer of snow, Spot or Climb seem more applicable - as the snow conceals evidence of past travellings, but you can still attempt to discern the best route.

  I agree that the description of the skills really lends itself to overlap - but that seems fine.  If I only get 4 skills to choose from (failing the receipt of bonus skills), I'll be all too happy to have those skills overlap with other characters' skills from time to time.  We might all be trying to find a secret door - but I can be knocking on the walls and Listening for signs of a hollow spot while my friend's character is stuck sifting through Troll dung Searching for a telltale footprint.

Mar 8, 2013 -- 12:37AM, Keendk wrote:

Dont worry,  we are being very civilised here

Yes.
 

I very specifically said "what skill can you roll" as you DO roll skills in next as its a skill die, it wants to be rolled not gently put down. You are right that there is no skill CHECK, its an ability check where you "roll a skill" and add it. I know its a bugbear of yours so I tried to be specific in my language, dont really know how else to have worded it: "what skill can you roll when you roll an unspecified ability check" perhaps, but I think thats just spiltting hairs.

There is no such thing as unspecified ability checks.

LOL It's not a bugbear, I'm just pounding the point because it seems to be a glaring nail that keeps rearing its head.
 

I am a big fan of the ability system having been opened up so much, and that you roll int for searching and wisdom for spotting. I think its great and adds a huge degree of "openness" to the system as a whole. Go MM, youve got it right!
  How they expand on this with skills however is where the rigidnes sets in imo. To make any skill "usually/always rolled with X ability" is locking down all the goody openness we got from the ability system.

There's no rigidness, the rules merely take the initiative to make an example of reasoning in the application of skill training.

And that is where search/spot fails to add anything to the game as seperate entities. I want to find a trap by being aware of my souroundings I roll wisdom +search or spot. I want to find a trap by reasoning I roll Int+search or spot. The differentiation of the 2 skills comes in the stat being used and not from the skill it self. So as skills are specialities and being expert at something they should be able to be clearly defined completely unattached to a stat. They arent at the moment.

The nuance is still challenging your understanding...

The game assumes competence. If you were able to notice a trap simply because you are aware of your surroundings, you would automatically just notice the trap; the Dungeon Master would describe it to you -- that simple. Otherwise, the trap is hidden, and it requires action on your part in order to find it.

There is no passively mechanized resolution function, everything in the game is now manual and largely binary -- you're hidden or you're not, you can see it or you can't, you have to take an action or you don't. The dice don't decide these things for us unless we're checking or contesting the narrative.

Mar 7, 2013 -- 9:01AM, mrpopstar wrote:

The description of search states that "You use Search whenever you actively look around for clues that point to a hidden object, such as a trap or secret door, or hints that might point to a person’s or creature’s passage through or activity in an area." (Backgrounds and Skills 10)

The description of spot states that "You use Spot to notice creatures lying in ambush ahead of you on the road, see signs of a thief hiding in the shadows of an alley, or catch sight of a faint gleam of candlelight under a closed secret door." (Backgrounds and Skills 10)

The search skill is the Nancy Drew skill. You use it to modify ability checks made to rummage through desks, notice things out of the ordinary, pick up clues, discern that a device is rigged, and generally do sleuthy things.

The spot skill is the Scout skill. You use it to modify ability checks made when keeping watch, catching on to sleight of hand, recognizing things that can be seen, and measuring visual acuity.

...they are not the same thing.

The justification is clear. There may be overlap, depending upon one's understanding or utilization, but that speaks to the desire of some to have skills apply broadly moreso than it indicates that the skills fail to accomplish what they're intended to accomplish. 

Both spot and search rely on sight, and they give you information about your environment that you can detect through visual means. (Compared to Listen which uses auditory clues.) Why are they two separate skills, instead of a single skill that represents your visual accumen. D&D encouraging people to be creating with what ability they are using to interact with the world, which is what the Int vs. Wis choice in the above examples highlights, why is there actually two different skills to represent the same sense?

As devil's advocate examples, consider

1) Why isn't there Listen (Wis) and Analyze Sound (Int) skills, instead of just Listen?
2) Why isn't there Subtle Threat (Cha) and Intimidate (Str) skills, instead of just Intimidate?

If you take away the concept of how (i.e. Int vs. Wis) you are using the information your sense of sight is giving you about the environment, what is the difference between Spot and Search?

Track
On a similar vein, what is the difference between the Track feat and Search skill?

In the "How to Play" document, the description of Search includes "...hints of a creature's passage through an area,"

Wouldn't you be able to use Search to learn similar information as Track? It doesn't seem unreasonable that a PC (without Track) with a good Search/Int roll could deduce the "number of creatures, their sizes, and the speed and direction they were travelling."

Other expert feats typically improve an existing skill (such as climb sheer surfaces giving you advantage on STR checks to climb). Track implies that there's things you cannot do with the Search skill; however, unlike Charming presence giving you the ability to Charm an NPC (something that Persuade can't replicate regardless of your score), the overlap between Track and Search are much more murky.