|
3 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 8:24PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2013
|
Here (and in your next post) you are making the mistake of thinking "I use Skill X skill to do Y," which is not how 5e works. Rather, it is "I use my Ability Score X to do Y, and applying Skill Z if it makes sense."
Hey! Someone who knows how skills work in DDN! I was wondering when someone would get around to mentioning this.
I vastly prefer the DDN approach to 3E or 4E's skills. Attempts being based on ability scores is a much more elegant and open system to a static skill list. Being able to apply skills to the abilities is just added goodness that, technically, can be infinitely expanded. Even if it isn't added to at all, though, using ability checks to resolve tasks makes more sense.
The 2 core goals of DDN:
1. Create a version of D&D that embraces the enduring, core elements of the game.
2. Create a set of rules that allows a smooth transition from a simple game to a complex one.
- Mike Mearls
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 8:49PM
#22
|
|
|
Let's see:
- Tell the DM what you want to do
- DM tells you
- what ability check to make
- what the DC of the task is, and
- if any of your skills apply
- Make your ability check
- add your skill die bonus to the roll if your skill applies
- Compare the result to the DC
It's exactly the same steps taken with 13th Age's ability/background checks (replace skill die bonus with background bonus), yet why is it that I prefer 13th Age's backgrounds over 5E's ability/skill checks? Perhaps it's because of...
Show
- Customizability. I feel that 5E's need to define skills, yet at the same time have them apply to any ability check so long as it's sensible to your background is pointless, especially when compared to a background system that allows the group to define what your backgrounds/skills are and use them in the exact same way backgrounds/skills are used in 5E
- The only saving grace of the 5E background system involves the Trait aspect of the background... but considering how it not only does it appear to be something that can easily be construed from the 13th Age background system (which runs on common sense as well as whatever is discussed with the DM), it pales in comparison to the One Unique Thing of 13th Age.
- Granularity. One of the biggest complaints about 4E's skill system was the lack of granularity -- you either had training and got a +5 to that ability check, or you had no training at all -- and instead of providing a solution, it could be argued that 5E is making things worse by granting a scaling non-granular skill system within a static DC system.
- On the other hand, this does allow improvements to be much more apparent, so it's in favor of the players... so long as the dice doesn't roll a 1~4 at high levels, since a natural 1 on the skill die kinda says that in spite of your skill and experience in the world, your background's contribution to the scenario is still only as good as if you were a low level character
- Interestingly as well, because of the way the skill system is structured, if at level 9 (and feats are enabled) you take the feat that grants you extra skills, you instantly get a far more significant boost to those skills as compared to taking the same feat at level 1, or taking a background that grants those feats.
- Compare with 13th Age's background system, which also provides a scaling skill system within a DC system that can easily be considered as static. In that background system, your "skills" are quite granular in design due to the fact that you can assign base values to them, so instead of all skills granting either a +12 [on a lucky roll] or a +1 at the highest level possible, we're looking at a system that grants you a consistent 10+X at the highest level possible.
- The only reason why backgrounds in 13th Age scale at all is because everything's more or less tied up to levels. Apply Bounded Accuracy to 13th Age, and you'll have experts in a given field always adding only +5 (or maybe +7, if you take the Epic tier feat), while novices in that same field always adding only +1.
- Simplicity. Compare:
- 5E: add your ability modifier, d20 roll, skill die roll. Increase the skill die size by one at certain levels
- 13th Age: add your ability modifier, level, d20 roll, and background.
Overall, I'm not seeing the elegance of 5E's skill/background system even when compared to 4E's skill system, and I find 3E, 4E, and 5E's skill systems as inferior to 13th Age's background system (which I admit is inferior to FATE's Aspects, from which the system is derived from, although a clear advantage of 13th Age's system is that unlike Aspects, Backgrounds are not tied to any system other than ability scores, so it's much more portable than Aspects).
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 8:59PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2010
|
Here (and in your next post) you are making the mistake of thinking "I use Skill X skill to do Y," which is not how 5e works. Rather, it is "I use my Ability Score X to do Y, and applying Skill Z if it makes sense."
Actually no in 5e you, the player, would say, "I want to use my knowledge of science to build an air conditioner."
The DM says okay make me an int check, and you add your knowledge science die to the roll.
Are we arguing? I don't think we're arguing.
I wasn't trying to portray how you'd describe what you were doing at the game table. I was merely underscoring the difference in mechanics between DDN and previous editions -- really, more of a difference in mentality more than anything.
I want "punch magic in the face" to be a maneuver
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 9:10PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Here (and in your next post) you are making the mistake of thinking "I use Skill X skill to do Y," which is not how 5e works. Rather, it is "I use my Ability Score X to do Y, and applying Skill Z if it makes sense."
Actually no in 5e you, the player, would say, "I want to use my knowledge of science to build an air conditioner."
The DM says okay make me an int check, and you add your knowledge science die to the roll.
Are we arguing? I don't think we're arguing. I think we're saying the same thing in different ways.
I wasn't trying to portray how you'd describe what you were doing at the game table. I was merely underscoring the difference in mechanics between DDN and previous editions -- really, more of a difference in mentality more than anything.
It just seemed like you were saying that mentioning skill had nothing to do with it or that mentioning it as a skill check wasn't part of the game when it very much is I was more trying to make sure you got waht was the actual flow of play because it differed from what you had said. I've had a lot of people that didn't actually grasp how the skill system works in 5e (because they didn't actually read the section I quoted). I was just making sure you did.
Because you say it is, "I use ability score x to accomplis y", and that isn't exactly how it works.
You, the player, says, "I want to do X", or, "I want to use my ability with skill Y to do X".
Then the DM says either, "Okay make me a check with Z ability score", or, "that's impossible"(in the case where he thinks that action is impossible), or "okay it works" (in the case where he determines there was no way for you to fail).
not arguing just trying to clear things up about the actual flow of play.
though I see what you were driving at. For the most part you as the player are supposed to barely think in terms of mechanics just in terms of what your character would do. I agree that looking straight at the ability scores should be the direct informer of that decision making process.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 3:31AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2007
|
Here (and in your next post) you are making the mistake of thinking "I use Skill X skill to do Y," which is not how 5e works. Rather, it is "I use my Ability Score X to do Y, and applying Skill Z if it makes sense."
Hey! Someone who knows how skills work in DDN! I was wondering when someone would get around to mentioning this.
I vastly prefer the DDN approach to 3E or 4E's skills. Attempts being based on ability scores is a much more elegant and open system to a static skill list. Being able to apply skills to the abilities is just added goodness that, technically, can be infinitely expanded. Even if it isn't added to at all, though, using ability checks to resolve tasks makes more sense.
I agree on that, but using that mecanics does not prevent the use of a shorter skill list
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here:
http://www.radiancerpg.com
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 4:07AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Oct 27, 2012
|
Well, I have always been fond of the skill lists in 3.5 / Pathfinder
Well, I actually prefer the pathfinder approach over 3.5
I am at the moment considering a character concept for a pathfinder rogue
I expect to put a few ranks in
Craft Painting:
In order to have a credible cover story for gaining access to noblemen villas
In order to seduce rich girls
In order to document exploration. That gives advantages if you have to write letters to sages or show them a picture of the ruin you are talking about
In order to help research into ancient mysteries by making it easier to perform research for clues in museum collections
Craft Carpentry
In order to have a credible cover story for gaining access to noblemen villas while carrying lots of tools
In order to be able to install secret doors and compartments
In order to make it easier to determine the age of ruins
In order to obtain extra clues (crafting technique or material indicates this stuff was made at ....)
I am considering Craft basketweawing
In order to be able to make bags with secret compartments for weapons or illegal stuff
In order to obtain extra clues in mysteries (crafting technique or material indicates this stuff was made at ....)
and so forth
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 4:18AM
#27
|
|
|
Pathfinder's kind of interesting in the regard that putting a single point into a very niche skill is actually a reasonable choice some of the time, because the first point gets you +4. In 3.5, putting just a point into a niche skill was a lot more questionable, since +1 to a skill doesn't even make you perceptably better at the skill. (For the same reason, putting more than one point into a niche skill in PF is generally questionable.) As a result, Pathfinder characters (especially ones with a large number of skill points) do sometimes end up with bonuses to a lot more niche skills than you'd see in 3.5.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 4:30AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Oct 27, 2012
|
yes, i think that the PF way of doing it is vastly superior to 3.5
I do not have to be supergood at craft painting. Just one skill rank and it is workable for my intensions
1+3+abi mod + tool bonus.
I can afford it and it gives a lot more depth to the character
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 5:47AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Oct 27, 2012
|
Pathfinder is actually supercool
I am considering to combine rogue with bard
A craft skill plus mending sounds as a good way to repair damaged stuff found in ruins in order to obtain more historical objects there can be sold to museums as art objects
Craft basketweaving or craft pottery or craft clothing combined with a mending spell.
Craft clothing could also be cool in order to create clothing with hidden pockets for daggers, small illegal objects and so forth
Seems to me, that the pathfinder approach is cool because i can for a minor part of my skill ranks obtain good enough skill proficiency in a large amount of skills
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 5:53AM
#30
|
|
|
Another thing that's cool about PF is that if you want your character to pick up a skill later in life, he can be meaningfully competant at it without months of time passing first or without having to spend what might be all of his skill points for a level on it.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
