So I played D&D 5E yesterday, and have been flipping through the PHB looking at how advancements and skills and stuff works.
My only question, the fuck did they do?
>>44645980
>My only question, the fuck did they do?
Translation?
>>44645980
Well, they decided that advancements and skills and stuff suck the way they used to do them.
>>44645980
skills?
take the corresponding attribute bonus
lets say your charisma (CHA) is 14, giving you a +2 bonus to CHA based skills and checks.
your deception skill would be a 2, assuming you are not proficient with it. if you were proficient with CHA (or just the deception skill) and the character is at lv 1, your proficiency bonus would be a +2 and would be added to your deception skill's 2 giving you 4 total. every time you rolled a deception skill check, you would add +4 (just 2 if you are not proficient) to your roll.
the only way to really increase them is either increase your attributes or level up enough for your proficiency bonus to increase (becomes +3 at lv5, +4 at lv10), or the effect of an item or spell.
>>44645980
> My only question:
> I don't understand anything
It sounds like you're a retard, anon. I recommend euthanasia.
> My only question, the fuck did they do?
They partially fucked them up by tacking them all on to proficiency bonus.
Now you cannot learn new skills. And if you did learn cooking at 10th level, you'd be a master cook despite having just taken the skill.
If you are expecting good or intelligent game design from Dungeons and Dragons, you're out of luck. They are just finally learning how to have a unified mechanic and they are STILL fucking it up, so what do you expect?
Also skill checks are d20 + stat + proficiency bnonus if you have the skill, just + stat if you don't have the skill. Easy enough? It's bullshit but it's easy bullshit.
>>44645980
>My only question, the fuck did they do?
Go to another board, we're trying to minimize the number of retards here.
sage etc.
>>44646384
> cannot learn new skills
Take the skilled feat if you need more skills. But yes, you will instantly be as good with the new skills as you were with the old.
>>44646560
>But yes, you will instantly be as good with the new skills as you were with the old.
And that is bullshit. This is why they should have fixed skill points instead of chucking them entirely.
>>44645980
Remember all that stuff that was shit?
Now it's better.
>>44646789
Fixed skill points could be dumped into a skill.
Even a character with 4 skill points could be as good as a starting character who had spent their entire life up to that point learning that skill. Someone with 8 points could become twice that good in one level up.
>>44646789
Regale us with how they should have done such, sirrah, I beg of you.
A 1-20 campaign in 5e covers the span of months. You don't get knew skills without feats or class abilities, and it makes a lot more sense than getting better at basket weaving while you spend a month fighting for your life.
If your campaign does sprawl years, then you can take the time to pick up a new skill or two for free outside of normal leveling.
>>44646384
You can still learn tools and language proficiency as downtime.
>>44646384
>Now you cannot learn new skills.
They're very lax with skills this time around. Under the background rules, you can take pretty much any skills you want.
You can train in your downtime to learn new tools and languages. 250 days and 1 gp per day seems pretty bullshit, but maybe it's realistic.
There's a feat (optional rule) to gain more skills, but with a shortened skill list, do you really want one player to have all the skills? You're adventuring in a party, it makes sense to work together.
>>44647548
Everyone already has all the skills anyway, since there's no penalty for not being proficient.
When it comes to skills in 5e you're definitely an adventurer first and a [class] second.
>>44647596
I could be getting mixed up with tools, but I think it says somewhere that, at the DM's discretion, you might require proficiency in a skill to use it in a particular scenario.
I've seen this at least once in an official adventure. There's a part in Hoard of the Dragon Queen where the player characters are being observed, so they make Wisdom (Insight) checks to see what they notice. A character with Charisma (Deception) proficiency can roll that instead, "to use their knowledge of deception to recognize when someone else is putting the same talent to use".
>>44647749
Ah, but all characters could make that initial Insight check, even if they don't have insight. The deception alternate seems more like a bonus if you do have it than a requirement if you don't.
>>44647102
And that was also bulllshit. That's why you should have started with Int score in skill points, then be allowed to increase three to four skills by 1 each level.
> but wah wah that's more bookkeeping and shit
Fine, turn D&D into dumbed down drivel.
>>44647474
>>44647548
Yes, and you can learn a new skill at 10th level and instantly master it. That is bullshit, as I said above.
>>44647879
But the system you'd rather have is also bullshit for literally the same reason. It's just slightly more granular bullshit.
>>44647906
>But the system you'd rather have is also bullshit for literally the same reason. It's just slightly more granular bullshit.
No, I said you got Int score in skill points to start, and then were allowed to improve 3 or 4 skills by ONE point each time you leveled up, so that you would SLOWLY advance in new skills you learned. Fucking idiot, learn to read.
Now you'll just say it's too complicated, when in fact it isn't, and a huge step up from the 3.5 system. Especially when skills are mostly secondary shit anyway. But go ahead. I don't give much of a shit about 5e or D&D in general anymore, I just try to point out better designed alternatives to the crappy rules they came up with.
The ONLY reason not to do this is so that you can link the skills to proficiency and increase the mechanic's ubiquity. Which is fine. But you must accept that there are major tradeoffs in flexibility and believability when you do it that way.
>>44647857
If a game can be played with minimal lookups and bookkeeping, then it's a well-designed game. Not "dumbed down". Keep believing that improvement is an attack, you fucking American.
>>44647977
So what you want is the same thing (A slow build up of the skills you get), but with less options and no point learning anything at all at high levels.
Terrific.
>>44648001
>If a game can be played with minimal lookups and bookkeeping, then it's a well-designed game. Not "dumbed down". Keep believing that improvement is an attack, you fucking American.
Top kek.
1) What the fuck does being American have to do with it?
2) I can play with my own shit with minimal rule lookups. Same with Go Fish. But both are shitty games. So you are missing the other element of that equation, which is that it's INTUITIVELY designed, not dumbed down. Intuitive rules are easy to learn even if it's not a very rules light game.
>>44648073
> So what you want is the same thing (A slow build up of the skills you get)
No, what you want is for a 10th level character to be able to take two cooking classes and suddenly become a 10th level chef because "muh heroicism".
> but with less options and no point learning anything at all at high levels.
On the contrary. The options in the 5e players book are literally "pick three skills from this list, your Intelligence score doesnt fucking help you making it useless unless you're a wizard, and these are the only skills you get" then forcing you to take a feat (if your game even uses feats) to learn a new skill.
Nice false equivalency you fucking moron.
>>44648160
Actually, it's closer to 6 skills from a list, and a level ten character getting a single point in a skill will be fairly useless at level 10. "Muh realism" doesn't work in D&D, because D&D has levels and scales challenges to those levels.
>>44648227
>"Muh realism" doesn't work in D&D, because D&D has levels and scales challenges to those levels.
Fucking bullshit, and this just points to D&D being a badly designed game as well.
The infinite treadmill does not apply to basic tasks. Your character with only a couple points in Cooking skill can still cook nice meals for the party. It does not become more challenging to cook just because he is 10th level.
Same with athletics / jumping. The only thing that scales is combat, and THAT is where the infinite treadmill bullshit applies. So, take athletics. That's the solution, since it's used for grappling. Otherwise, quit crying because I am proposing a system that is actually fair and makes sense, as opposed to the Mary Sue bullshit that WotC came up with.
>>44648270
If basic tasks aren't challenges, then who cares if the character has +1 or +4 or +10 in the skill? It won't change anything.
The system you are proposing is just 3.X, but slower and less fun.
>>44648270
>Mary Sue bullshit that WotC came up with.
I don't think you understand what Mary Sue means.
>>44646789
The game simply doesn't care to model that kind of behaviour. If you want to have a level 20 god of magic who happens to be a casual amateur-level chef, the game doesn't care.
They chose to simplify the system because frankly at high levels it just doesn't really matter that you took 1 point in Skill: Fondle Balls so that now you are about 20% better at ball-fondling than Joe, who didn't put any points in it, because you are still way way WAY worse than Janet who has been keeping the skill maxed all the way to the current level and is so much better than you at ball-fondling that your pitiful 20% boost over Joe is like an ant going "man you're short" to another ant shortly before being crushed underfoot.
If you aren't very good at something, then D&D 5E doesn't care. It correctly recognizes that it probably doesn't matter, and even more, that trying to model the little skills you have but aren't very good at will just make the game system needlessly complex.
Your proficiency bonus plus your list of proficient skills represents how good you are at the shit you that actually matters. Anything else is between you and the DM to hand-wave.
>>44648160
>1) What the fuck does being American have to do with it?
Because everything has to be dumbed down, from movies, to books, to videogames, to education, to pander to the lowest common denominator.
If you were any thicker, two Harry Potter books would've been renamed "Cup of Hot" and "The Room of Shhhh..."
>>44648160
The skills you seem to want to be learning at level 10, such as cooking, are actually represented by tool proficiencies (Specifically stuff like Cook's utensils). Which can be learned without a feat through practice. If you really want to be a mediocre chef who can pile drive a bugbear without breaking a sweat, you can do that without even needing to level up first.
>>44648332
>The game simply doesn't care
That's all you needed to say.
>>44648332
>It correctly recognizes that it probably doesn't matter, and even more, that trying to model the little skills you have but aren't very good at will just make the game system needlessly complex.
No, it gives characters interest and depth mechanically. Besides just saying "lol you have these skills" like a shitty one page RPG so that it can get back to focusing on COMBAT COMBAT COMBAT which is all D&D 5e is anyway.
>>44648296
>If basic tasks aren't challenges, then who cares if the character has +1 or +4 or +10 in the skill? It won't change anything.
It's called taking 10, fucktard. Also the 3.5 system is much more complicated than what I am proposing. And in no way is it slower. It just has slightly more mechanical depth than a Lasers and Feelings hack, which is the audience 5e is meant to appeal to.
>>44648482
It kinda sounds like you want to introduce trap options where they currently don't exist.
Getting a single skill point in a skill point based system at high levels is pointless at best and actively inhibiting your usefulness by taking a point away from something you already have high at worst. It's not going to help anything and you don't need mechanical points for roleplaying anyway.
>>44648372
>Because everything has to be dumbed down, from movies, to books, to videogames, to education, to pander to the lowest common denominator.
Yeah you are projecting something that has nothing to do with this thread. And I am suggesting NOT dumbing down the game.
>>44648518
>It kinda sounds like you want to introduce trap options where they currently don't exist.
No, it kinda sounds like I want to introduce a semi-realistic way for learning skills.
Only a fucking idiot like yourself would be able to turn it into a trap option.
> Getting a single skill point in a skill point based system at high levels is pointless at best and actively inhibiting your usefulness by taking a point away from something you already have high at worst. It's not going to help anything and you don't need mechanical points for roleplaying anyway.
You are increasing three separate skills in the proposed system. You can increase a skill you already have, or learn a new one, but there is a cost. That is what you need to learn, that there are tradeoffs for these things. That's not a trap option, that's an RPG that presents choice in character creation. If you consider that to be nothing but a " trap option" and want the game to hold your goddamn hand, then play 5e, that's what it's meant for. I'm just pointing out that this would allow more variety to characters.
>>44648482
So you're implying that a single point is actually relevant in your proposed skill point system. Which means the character who has built up 10 points by level 10 is infinitely better at it than anyone else and pigeonholing characters to maximize a few skills is the order of the day.
>>44648580
Taking a single skill point at level 10 is pointless. Only getting three skill points at level 1 also introduces trap options, since you can either be proficient in three good options or two good options and one roleplaying only option that doesn't actually contribute to the welfare of the group as a whole.
At least in 5e, I don't have to choose between being useful and having minor roleplaying elements that would cost skill points in your system.
>>44648586
>So you're implying that a single point is actually relevant in your proposed skill point system.
Not at once, but over time, yes. Learning is gradual, which you would know if you had ever actually learned something.
> Which means the character who has built up 10 points by level 10 is infinitely better at it than anyone else and pigeonholing characters to maximize a few skills is the order of the day.
Yes, because that character spent a lot of skill points on it. Whereas another character would have spent their skill points on something else. If you want to learn a new skill later to gain basic competence in it, you can (DCs don't fucking scale with level, you can still do basic tasks unless your DM's a retard).
Also, a character with 10 points in a skill is 10x better than someone with 1 point, stop using meaningless hyperbole to make the problem seem more extreme than it is.
>>44648482
>I need the mechanics to tell me how to roleplay
This is how retarded you sound like.
>a 3.5boo misses being told what to do
>>44648622
>Taking a single skill point at level 10 is pointless
Not if you don't know how to Survival at ALL but suddenly need to learn because the Ranger died. Or you want to be able to help out with the hunting. But no you are not yet as good as a MASTER ranger, no fucking shit, obviously.
> Only getting three skill points at level 1 also introduces trap options
You're a dumb shit. I never said that. I said you get skill points equal to your INT score that you can spread among them. The irregularity means you'll have skills at different levels, some you are good at some you aren't. That makes sense; there are things I have minor skill at and things I have major skill at. There are differences.
It's a lot fucking better than "everything I know how to do is at +5 because I fought a bunch of monsters and that made me better at everything"
>>44648644
>This is how retarded you sound like.
Nowhere in my post did I say or imply that I needed mechanics to roleplay. However, I generally DO like it when the system reflects my roleplaying in the mechanics. That is a symptom of a GOOD game. If my character is a blacksmith and has been since 1st level, and some cunt spends a feat and instantly becomes as good as me, SOLELY because he fought as many monsters as I did, I call bullshit on that game.
It's like asking me to play a rogue but roleplay him a a fighter. I'd get killed in ten seconds flat. Stop projecting some personal insecurity of roleplaying ability to cover up a lack of connection between RP and game mechanics.
>>44648668
I hated 3.5 but I liked the idea of skill points, if not the execution. Stop strawmanning and contribute to the argument.
>>44648684
Your system is shit. It was shit back when 3.X did it with the level+3 skill cap and it's shit now that it has a level+0 cap and also a cap of 1 per level.
>>44648754
It's not SOLELY because he fought as many monsters as you. He gave up 2 attribute points and every other possible feat he could have gotten for that.
>>44648757
>Your system is shit. It was shit back when 3.X did it with the level+3 skill cap and it's shit now that it has a level+0 cap and also a cap of 1 per level.
Your system is shit as well. At least mine has the benefit of being somewhat realistic AND not punishing players for taking a skill at lower levels.
Also, I did not say there was a cap of 1 per level and level +0, I did not even fucking mention a cap, I mentioned:
1) Starting skill points equal to Intelligence score. Maybe a cap of 3 skill points to start per skill.
2) Each level up, you can increase 2 to 3 DIFFERENT skills, maybe with an Int bonus tacked on. No class skills or any of that gay shit.
>>44648778
>It's not SOLELY because he fought as many monsters as you. He gave up 2 attribute points and every other possible feat he could have gotten for that.
Oh lovely he gave up a feat. Whereas I have been training since level 1. And yet he is suddenly as good as me just because he didn't raise his Charisma to 20 because it's already at 20 and you can't level your stats past 20 in this clusterfuck of a system.
>>44648684
>better
Subjective. Given the option purely between your system and the way 5e handles it now, I prefer the way its handled now. I prefer abstraction. That's just my opinion.
What *isn't* just my opinion is that your system opens up situations where players can end up putting 1-2 points in 10 different skills for "roleplaying reasons" and then they're absolutely useless in any skill-related situation when the rest of the party maxed 3-4 skills the entire time. That's the definition of a trap option.
Also
>level based games
>having realistic character progression
>>44647879
What's wrong with that?
One day the wizard goes to sleep, he wakes up, he knows a new spell.
Suddenly the barbarian knows how to land attacks twice as often.
After 250 days, the bard finally can play a new instrument effectively.
It's assumed they're training and learning between adventures, and there's a cut-off point.
The fiddly numbers you want in >>44647977 are a far more irritating alternative that wastes time and adds very little to the game.
I mean, why does a cleric just KNOW the sacred flame cantrip? Shouldn't he have to get better at it? Maybe start out at 1d4, then it goes to 1d6, etc.?
Oh wait, that's handled perfectly in an even, abstract way by character level. Just like proficiency bonus.
>>44648853
>What *isn't* just my opinion is that your system opens up situations where players can end up putting 1-2 points in 10 different skills for "roleplaying reasons" and then they're absolutely useless in any skill-related situation when the rest of the party maxed 3-4 skills the entire time. That's the definition of a trap option.
So give them a few more skill points to work with. It's up to them whether they choose to go generalist or specific. In fact, they can do a bit of both.
If you had actually played 3.5 you would know you don't actually need half of your skill points anyway so you can put them into whatever the fuck you want. Even a rogue with a decent Int can usually cover all his bases and have points to spare.
>>44648844
>not punishing players for taking a skill at lower levels.
No, it punishes them for not taking a skill at lower levels, because they will never, ever be as good at that skill as someone who started at a lower level and they have to purposefully not level up one of their other skills to do it.
It's also not realistic because it's not based on time or practice, only level. Someone who levels up three times in a month without ever using a given skill can be three points ahead of someone else who spent the entire month practicing that skill and not leveling up.
>Oh lovely he gave up a feat.
I don't think you quite grasp how good feats are in this edition.
>>44648482
> it gives characters interest and depth
In a d20 system, each additional bonus of +1 is 5% better. That's important when it comes to the stuff you're going to be rolling a lot. A 5% better swordsman is going to be chopping off a lot more heads over the course of a year-long adventure, just as much as a 5% better diplomat will be convincing people of stuff or a 5% better mage will be at bending the rules of reality.
When it comes to the stuff that you aren't going to be rolling a lot, 5% here or there is a pretty insignificant difference.
Modelling the 5% difference makes the system complex. By omitting this for secondary skills, the system remains pretty straightforward. There are certainly systems that do model secondary and tertiary skills. Shadowrun, RIFTS, the White Wolf World of Darkness games, etc. all do.
D&D 3.5 tried a bit to do it as well, but since 1 skill point was worth 1 skill point (almost) no matter where you put it, making your character well-rounded was usually done at the expense of making them capable at their raison d'être. The other systems I listed have some way of making skills cheaper to improve to a middling level. WoD, for example, makes the 1st dot in a skill relatively pricey (picking up something new is hard to do) but the 2nd dot is quite cheap. The remaining three levels are increasingly expensive, so you'll only get them for stuff your character is really focusing on, but the first dot or two in some skills is cheap enough to be worth it here and there.
The thing about D&D is that it's really focused on modelling classic fantasy tales. In those kinds of stories, a character's secondary skills only tend to make a difference when they are actually really good (and they wind up saving the day) or when they are severely outclassed (showing off how much better some other character is by comparison). If they're only middling, they tend to get hand-waved.
>>44648923
>One day the wizard goes to sleep, he wakes up, he knows a new spell.
Yes, and he learns ONE spell at a time. He doesn't decide to multiclass as a wizard at 10th level and suddenly know all the 10th level wizard spells.
> Suddenly the barbarian knows how to land attacks twice as often.
representing the climax of a SLOW progression. It's not like he suddenly learned to use an axe from 0th level to 10th level skill, in one day. That's what we are referencing here. Not minor bumps in skill that represent actual advancement.
>>44648962
Skills are not equivalent to class features. They have never been equivalent to class features.
>>44648923
>The fiddly numbers you want in >>44647977 (You) are a far more irritating alternative that wastes time and adds very little to the game.
No, it adds a lot ot the game. Your way is frankly unacceptable and smacks of childish mary sue training montage bullshit.
>>44648955
>I don't think you quite grasp how good feats are in this edition.
I do grasp that. They are in fact so good that you can become a 10th level blacksmith as a rseult of killing a carrion crawler, despite having never touched a fucking anvil and hammer before.
I have seen the other feats and they are very good but NONE of them are this OP or reality breaking. Hell even the 3.5 spells weren't this reality breaking.
>>44648959
>When it comes to the stuff that you aren't going to be rolling a lot, 5% here or there is a pretty insignificant difference.
So it's okay when attack rolls do it, but not skills? Again, COMBAT COMBAT COMBAT.
Not to mention your proficiency bonus only increases by twenty fucking percent as you level up. That's the difference between +2 and +6 proficiency bonus. So I fail to see how this is even worse.
> making your character well-rounded was usually done at the expense of making them capable at their raison d'être.
Yeah you never played 3.5. Rogue with decent int (I'm talking 13 or 14) had loads of leftover skill points after covering all of his bases (generally Open Lock, Disable Device, Tumble, Hide, Move Silently, and Listen)
>>44648997
You place too much value on skills. They aren't that important, even for downtime roleplaying purposes.
Also, blacksmithing is a tool proficiency which can be learned with literally nothing but time and practice.
>>44648997
Now answer the first part of that second post.
>>44648992
>Skills are not equivalent to class features. They have never been equivalent to class features.
That's my entire point, autist. You're the one who made the comparison. A barbarian leveling up his attack bonus slowly, then getting an extra attack as a result, is not the same as a man who has never touched a hammer before suddenly becoming a master blacksmith.
But since D&D is COMBAT COMBAT COMBAT no one gives a fucking about these minor skills, because "lol if it's not a life or death challenge it shouldn't be rolled for" while ignoring taking 10 and similar systems for modeling routine skill checks.
> b-b-b-but my character is a hero! he doesn't need to bother with all that stuff! MORE COMBAT MORE COMBAT MORE COMBAT
This is how the skill system got royally fucked. At least D&D is admitting it's the miniatures wargame it always was (sans the miniatures now), but it's sad to see this kind of wasted potential.
Shit like this >>44649047 just proves my point.
>>44649035
No, he has three or four extra skill points. Two of which he is probably putting into Spot and Search, leaving him with two extra points.
>>44648754
>However, I generally DO like it when the system reflects my roleplaying in the mechanics.
And I don't give a shit. That's not an important part of the system, because the system is there to arbitrate questionable outcomes. The fact that the character was a blacksmith from day one or just have taken to it recently is neither questionable nor is an outcome, so it shouldn't take up space in the rulebook.
>It's like asking me to play a rogue but roleplay him a a fighter.
It isn't like that at all.
>>44649086
Nice strawman. Also, people who want mechanical representations for literally everything shouldn't throw autistic stones.
>>44649066
Okay.
>>44648955
>No, it punishes them for not taking a skill at lower levels, because they will never, ever be as good at that skill as someone who started at a lower level and they have to purposefully not level up one of their other skills to do it.
It still allows them to perform basic tasks, with potentially excess skill points. Given that this edition does NOT subscribe to the NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS that 3.5 did, and a 20th level character's proficiency is only like +6, this isn't such a big deal, because there isn't such a divide between low and high level skills.
> It's also not realistic because it's not based on time or practice, only level. Someone who levels up three times in a month without ever using a given skill can be three points ahead of someone else who spent the entire month practicing that skill and not leveling up.
That's because the leveling is a stupid mechanic, but we'd have to throw away the rest of the system for that to work. Also, how is 5e any different? A fighter with blacksmithing is going to rank up his blacksmithing more than the village blacksmith ever will, just by adventuring. That is a consequence of EITHER SYSTEM proposed here.
>>44649109
>No, he has three or four extra skill points.
That's plenty, and that's for a normal Intelligence rogue. And that's also assuming he gives a shit about spot, or tumble. Both of which are honestly optional skills.
Not to mention Stealth and Perception are a thing in 5e, freeing up even MORE skill points for this hypothetical rogue.
>>44649111
>And I don't give a shit. That's not an important part of the system,
No, it is, and your refusal to accept it means you need to get out of the roleplaying community because you are toxic shit who cares about nothing but combat.
> The fact that the character was a blacksmith from day one or just have taken to it recently is neither questionable nor is an outcome, so it shouldn't take up space in the rulebook.
Shit-tier artifact crap takes up space in the rulebook, making the game believable NEEDS to be part of the rulebook or it has no right to even call itself a game.
>>44649152
>Given that this edition does NOT subscribe to the NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS that 3.5 did, and a 20th level character's proficiency is only like +6, this isn't such a big deal, because there isn't such a divide between low and high level skills.
Having the 20+stat bonus that you'd get in your system (For putting a point in a skill from level 1 to level 20) is a lot higher than 6+stat bonus that it caps out at now. You are adding NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS, but also restricting it so that only people who get a head start can actually use the NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS.
>That is a consequence of EITHER SYSTEM proposed here.
Which means yours is not better.
>>44649111
>It isn't like that at all.
Yes it is. It's saying that my blacksmith backstory is USELESS because someone can just get to my level by throwing a feat. It's minimalizing an aspect of my character because the roleplaying rules do not reflect reality.
>>44645980
They took a step away from simulationism, because D&D is terrible at simulationism.
>>44649209
>Which means yours is not better.
No, it means the consequence you brought up is irrelevant. The consequence you brought up is avoidable with a level system which is the core part of D&D. I am simply presenting a way to make it SOMEWHAT more believable for little cost in the way of complication, except for a baby who can't comprehend anything beyond having the same bonus for everything.
> Having the 20+stat bonus that you'd get in your system (For putting a point in a skill from level 1 to level 20) is a lot higher than 6+stat bonus that it caps out at now. You are adding NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS, but also restricting it so that only people who get a head start can actually use the NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS.
Then you can reduce the numbers to make it more in line with proficiency. The idea isn't perfect as is, obviously it would need some adjustment. But it is an improvement on the unbelievablility of "learn a new skill and instantly know it at your level" crap that has become part of D&D.
>>44649223
You blacksmith backstory is useless. You're an adventurer now. You adventure. You used to blacksmith as your actual job, but no longer. Blacksmithing is secondary at best and should be relegated to roleplaying, not mechanical points that can only be gained by neglecting adventure.
>>44649035
> Open Lock
> Disable Device
> Tumble
> Hide
> Move Silently
> Listen
You forgot Search and Spot, not to mention the god-skill Use Magic Device. Plus probably Use Rope to tie stuff up, almost certainly Sleight of Hand if you plan on stealing anything at all, Sense Motive if you don't plan on being swindled, Balance to walk across that tightrope, Hide if you ever need to stage an ambush, Escape Artist to get of manacles, Bluff to dindu nuthin' officer, etc.
And that's the ROGUE you're talking about. The class with the MOST skills to throw around. If he puts a few points into Handle Animal so he can train a pet dog or maybe a little Craft(Sushi) so he can cook for the crew, he is giving up his fundamental usefulness at all the things he's actually supposed to be good at.
Now think about the Fighter's measly skill point allotments. He also needs to be able to find things, climb mountains, swim in armour, jump small gaps, churlishly intimidate, etc. He has even less room to pick up basketweaving or accordion-playing.
3.5 was not good at modelling secondary skills. They were there as options, but because they were priced the same (or worse! cross-class skills are MORE expensive!) as the shit you really needed, they were actually traps.
>>44649282
So what, you get three skill points at level 5, three more at level 9, then 13, then 17?
That means that anyone with a lower int literally cannot afford to put their points anywhere but their relevant adventuring skills and anyone with more than that still isn't going to want to waste such a scarce resource by getting a brand new skill.
>>44649263
This exactly.
>>44649285
>You blacksmith backstory is useless. You're an adventurer now. You adventure.
No, it isn't useless. It's only useless to someone like you who cannot create good or interesting characters and thus get asshurt when someone wants the rules to support something besides COMBAT COMBAT COMBAT.
> You used to blacksmith as your actual job, but no longer.
And during downtime in town, I can craft something instead of spending money to buy it. I am using my character backstory to my advantage. Get the fuck over it.
> Blacksmithing is secondary at best and should be relegated to roleplaying, not mechanical points that can only be gained by neglecting adventure.
Except, my character was a blacksmith. That needs some mechanical representation because there are rules to the game. Otherwise the Wizard could smith stuff without any skill at all because he suddenly decided his character used to be a black smith too.
But please continue using that logic to carve everything not combat related out of D&D and turn it into even more of a mindless murderhobo simulator. That's what the entire rest of the RPG community considers it to be, and this line of thinking and attitude is doing nothing to help that image.
In every previous edition I have had rewarding experiences using my character's "secondary" skills to my advantage, and the rules rewarded that. This system just says "lol fuck that, get back to playing one of our pregen adventures and killing stuff because skills are pointless"
Why even include them at all, then? Oh wait, because some of them can be used for Grappling. And that is combat related, so it's useful.
Otherwise, fuck it, right?
>>44648929
Using your proposed system:
>Level 1 Rogue in 5e has 14 skill points.
>Puts 2 ranks (equivalent of current system) in each of Acrobatics, Athletics, Perception, Sleight of Hand, Stealth
>Can rogue effectively, has 4 skill points left over
Reasonable, but...
>Level 10 Rogue in 5e has 14 + (3 * 9) = 32 skill points
>Puts 6 ranks in each "rogue skill" and is really good at designated party role with 2 skill points left over
>OR puts 2 ranks in every skill (except 4) because "my character is a jack of all trades type" making him strictly worse at any given skill that someone in the party specialized in by a significant margin
T R A P O P T I O N S
>>44649361
> It's only useless to someone like you who cannot create good or interesting characters and thus get asshurt when someone wants the rules to support something besides COMBAT COMBAT COMBAT.
The rules do support that. You're the one looking for a mechanical crutch.
>>44649337
Yeah, you went to the other extreme and then complained that the adventurer didn't have enough skill points. That's your own problem, not mine.
Setting it so that even if you max out your main skills, you have points left over. That would leave you some points for minor skills you want to learn.
Similar to the Int score starting skill points idea; it's an irregular number so it'll result in you having some skills at different levels.
It also makes Intelligence smoething other than a dump stat for non Wizards.
>>44649428
>The rules do support that. You're the one looking for a mechanical crutch.
What, with backgrounds? Which are then obliviated by a character just learning that same goddamn skill anyway?
WotC is using decades-old RPG concepts that have already been used and improved. If backgrounds gave access to otherwise inaccessible skills, they'd be useful for flavor. Otherwise, they're just another part of your "build."
>>44649428
Yeah he's actually looking for rules to make his character an "okay, but not great" blacksmith. Man, who cares? You're a blacksmith and you have proficiency, or you aren't and you don't. 5E supports you being either. Nobody cares if you're somewhere in the middle.
>>44649361
>In every previous edition I have had rewarding experiences using my character's "secondary" skills to my advantage, and the rules rewarded that
You mean 3.X and 3.X alone, right? Because 2e had NWPs, which were not granular in the slightest and you got a new one every few levels, 4e used a system very similar to 5e, and everything before 2e was either "roll your relevant stat and tell the DM what you got" or proto-NWPs.
>>44649193
>No, it is, and your refusal to accept it means you need to get out of the roleplaying community because you are toxic shit who cares about nothing but combat.
Brah, DnD is and always has been about combat. If I want to play a game where my slowly advancing non-combat related abilities are crucial to my survival I go and play Call of Cthulhu. If I want to solve murder mysteries I play Gumshoe. If I want to play a game about being a murderhobo who is inexplicably viewed as a hero for murdering tons of goblins, I play DnD. You are trying to bash a system for not fulfilling roles it was never supposed to fulfill. No system is universal and you acting like the game should play like it was never designed to play like is honestly retarded.
>>44649223
>It's saying that my blacksmith backstory is USELESS because someone can just get to my level by throwing a feat. It's minimalizing an aspect of my character because the roleplaying rules do not reflect reality.
Why do you want a system designed to emulate the narrative conventions of epics, folk tales, fantastic novels and legends to conform to reality? DnD was never realistic and it never wanted to be. If you want realism try other systems.
>>44649433
That's not the other extreme, that's making it in line with the current system. If you max out a skill when getting points at those levels only, you max out at +6.
>>44649415
>T R A P O P T I O N S
Your example is retarded because it depends on him not having enough skill points to do everything.
Lower the cap and then he has some extra skill points and it falls in line, scale-wise, with proficiency.
It needs some tweaking but it's a hell of a lot better than the current system. Although it does unify everything under Proficiency, which I said above is why it is tolerable, despite it's shortcomings.
>>44649482
>You mean 3.X and 3.X alone, right? Because 2e had NWPs, which were not granular in the slightest and you got a new one every few levels, 4e used a system very similar to 5e, and everything before 2e was either "roll your relevant stat and tell the DM what you got" or proto-NWPs.
Yes, except the 4e system allowed 1/2 level to the skills you didn't pick, so you at least got something.
>>44649507
Then don't make it in line with the current system. It isn't using proficiency anyways. Just make it somewhat close so it doesn't break the game.
Set the cap in the middle like I said.
>>44649504
>Why do you want a system designed to emulate the narrative conventions of epics, folk tales, fantastic novels and legends to conform to reality? DnD was never realistic and it never wanted to be. If you want realism try other systems.
No, I want my fucking character to actually be represented fairly in the system. That's not realism, that's just being believable and rewarding of a character's backstory.
> You are trying to bash a system for not fulfilling roles it was never supposed to fulfill. No system is universal and you acting like the game should play like it was never designed to play like is honestly retarded.
Actually plenty of systems do D&D better than D&D, as well as several other genres. So no, that is wrong. D&D just does one job and does it shittily because it's based off a 1970s wargame mod written by an insurance underwriter with his head up his ass. Forty years later, game design has advanced far beyond that, while D&D is still clinging to the things that make it shitty because they are the only identity it has left.
>>44649552
And 5e allows you to use your stat bonus for skills you didn't pick, so you still get something.
Setting the cap in the middle breaks the game. It's currently designed so you can go from roughly -1 to +11 and that's enough to do anything. You're an adventurer first, a [class] second, and a [thing you were before an adventurer] third, if that.
>>44649621
>You're an adventurer first, a [class] second, and a [thing you were before an adventurer] third, if that.
And if they'd left it at that, it would have been fine. But they introduced a half assed skill system, and they are FULLY RESPONSIBLE for its consequences.
Background is nothing but "pick an extra skill that you could have picked before, so we can pretend we care about roleplaying" despite the fact that the concept was done 10 years ago by other games, and better. D&D cannot even copycat effectively, which is sad because if they could the game would be fine and no one would know the difference.
I came into this thread hoping to see some discussion of the pros and cons of 5E, as a lot of things about it seem interesting but I don't really have the time or energy to sit down and read the whole PHB.
Pic related. Especially because my gut wants to agree with >>44648844 but he's being such a raging douche.
Big props to >>44648332 though, first really good argument in favor of the way 5E does skills that I've seen.
>>44649706
>, first really good argument in favor of the way 5E does skills that I've seen.
> literally says 5e doesn't give a shit about anything but combat
Yeah, it's in favor of 5e skill system if you agree that D&D is COMBAT COMBAT NOTHING BUT COMBAT
Which, sadly, it is.
>>44649698
They did leave it at that. Everyone can use every skill. All adventurers know at least a bit about everything relevant to adventuring. People who are proficient are better at it, but "proficiency" is not a barrier to entry for any skill.
>so we can pretend we care about roleplaying
You're still looking for mechanical representation of things that should be roleplaying. And Backgrounds also give you a jumping off point for developing your character. it even gives you little tables of personality traits you can use to fulfill your need for mechanical representation.
>>44649753
I (>>44648332) literally did not say D&D5E doesn't give a shit about anything that's not "COMBAT COMBAT COMBAT"; that's all your meme-infused sperg-lording.
What I said was it doesn't give a shit about anything that your character is not GREAT at. If your fighter happens to be great at social situations or picking locks or baking bread or making swords, great! D&D5E models that just fine.
It's when your character is just sort of "so-so" okay amateur at them, that's when 5E does not care. 5E does not care that your Fighter can get through any song in Guitar Hero on Very Easy. It only knows about "can't even beat Guitar Hero on Very Easy" and "can fucking ace Through the Fire and Flames on Very Hard".
>>44649903
>What I said was it doesn't give a shit about anything that your character is not GREAT at
So it doesn't give a shit about being detailed beyond "youre a rogue so you can do the good rogue things really well"
So there's not even any reason for the skill system in the first place.
> It's when your character is just sort of "so-so" okay amateur at them, that's when 5E does not care. 5E does not care that your Fighter can get through any song in Guitar Hero on Very Easy. It only knows about "can't even beat Guitar Hero on Very Easy" and "can fucking ace Through the Fire and Flames on Very Hard".
Guitar Hero is a fucking useless skill and irrelevant to D&D, so obviously your point makes sense when it uses that fucktarded example. I'm talking about flavor skills like Survival and Blacksmithing and shit.
If 5e doesn't care about those, then 5e is not worth playing because once again all it cares about it super-high-heroics bullshit.
>>44649599
>I want my fucking character to actually be represented fairly in the system.
It's fairly represented. The fact that you want unimportant (from the perspective of the game) stuff to be represented indicates that you should play an another game, because this one is clearly not for you.
There's no shame in not not liking DnD. Hell, I'm not a big fan myself, but criticizing it for not fulfilling expectations it never wanted to fulfill is pretty retarded.
>Actually plenty of systems do D&D better than D&D, as well as several other genres.
No, there are lots of systems that do what you want DnD to do better. That's not the same thing as doing DnD better than DnD.
>>44649790
>You're still looking for mechanical representation of things that should be roleplaying.
So when you roll at +8 to hit as a fighter, that's pointless because it should be represented by roleplaying?
>>44649984
>(from the perspective of the game)
The perspective of the game is wrong.
> It's fairly represented.
No it isn't.
> indicates that you should play an another game, because this one is clearly not for you.
It's not for ANYONE who isn't obsessed with combat combat combat.
> There's no shame in not not liking DnD. Hell, I'm not a big fan myself, but criticizing it for not fulfilling expectations it never wanted to fulfill is pretty retarded.
Except it used to fill those expectations and it no longer does because the devs suddenly felt like going on an AD&D vibe.
> No, there are lots of systems that do what you want DnD to do better. That's not the same thing as doing DnD better than DnD.
No.
GURPS, FantasyCraft, Savage Worlds, 13th Age, and similar games quite literally do D&D's intended job better than D&D itself.
Two of those systems are literally taking the D&D system and making it actually better. As in, those systems are ACTUALLY BETTER VERSIONS OF D&D.
So yes, they ARE doing D&D better than D&D. Unless you think all D&D is a product label, because these systems take D&D's identity and tropes and improve on them.
The only thing D&D still does best, is have the brand name Dungeons and Dragons. That is it. Imitators have improved the system multiple times for years, and the developers have ignored that to do a 180 zig zag every time they release something new.
> it needs to be rules light!
> it needs to be rules heavy!
> it needs to be a wargame!
> it needs to be a mess!
> skill points are cool!
> skill points suck! but skills are still good
> casters are too OP!
> let's make everyone a caster!
> let's go back to the shitty 1-9 level spells again!
> let's be more like AD&D!
This system has required 5 editions to finally be somewhat decent. That says something.
>>44649989
AND you're still valuing skills as if they were class features!
Some people.
>>44649959
Again, you are missing the point. You can have a character in 5E that is good at things which aren't normally thought of as being in their wheelhouse. You can have a Survivalist Fighter or a Blacksmithing Rogue or whatever you want -- as long as those characters are actually really good at those things, because D&D 5E only models two levels of proficiency: proficient and not proficient.
If you are not proficient, you probably suck at that thing. If you are proficient, you are various levels of awesome at that thing, depending on character level. D&D5E does not model the stuff you don't completely suck at but aren't awesome at. I agree that in real life there are a lot of things that fall into that category.
The point is that when playing a fantasy adventure in a group, if you are not the guy who is proficient/awesome at a certain thing, then you are not the guy who is in charge of doing that thing. If you want to help, then you help -- that's what a +2 or Advantage from being helped is for.
Yeah, in real life you're probably more useful to the pro if you have a little amateur training, but that distinction is ignored in 5E because it probably won't matter for the challenge mechanics -- the guy who is actually awesome at the skill in question can probably succeed on his own, and almost certainly with enough help.
>>44649959
>So there's not even any reason for the skill system in the first place.
The reason for the skill system is so you know what the character is good at.
A fighter can, in fact, do thief stuff. If he has the skills. A thief can learn about religion and magic. If he has the skills.
Granularity does not equal relevance or importance. If it did, the best games would use percentages and a unified skill system for everything.
>>44650165
Actually, it's because everyone has a little amateur training. Everyone can attempt every skill. Someone with a high stat can even do okay at it. Proficiency is the difference between amateur and pro, not ignoramus and pro.
>>44649223
Couldn't fit it in one post so I'm writing a PDF for this reply. You bring up a valid argument, but I think there's a way to resolve this.
This may take a moment or several.
>>44645980
Just in case you didn't notice it, they took out take 10/20 as well (and then reintroduced a similar mechanic as take 10 for a select couple of skills, because why the fuck not?).
You're bard/rogue or it's RNG/DM fiat the game, just like in the good old days.
>>44649959
virt please leave
>>44650426
Hey, at least he is calling it '5e' instead of 'next'. That is an improvement.
I just don't understand why he cares so much. He hates 5e, fine. Play something else. I just don't get it.
>>44650731
He's a sociopath who can only get off to people getting mad on the Internet.
>>44649959
>flavor skill like Survival
Toppest of keks.
Can anyone point me to a good download link for the pdf of the players guide?
I really like being able to use the on screen glossaries, but that's pdf only.
I've been browsing but nothing so far.
Help?
>>44650901
check the mega in the geneal
>>44650325
Welp, here we go. Included is a houserule involving level and proficiency: I'm sure I cannot possibly be the first one to come up with it, but I figured its inclusion as an alternative was worth mentioning in case working with Proficiency rules as-is isn't your style.
>>44651549
This seems even more complicated than the idea I came up with, but at least it stays in line with the game's proficiency system. It'll work.
>>44651549
I guess I just don't think that the game is designed to model a PC being a master sword maker. A PC just isn't going to devote that kind of time to the craft. Certainly it shouldn't be part of his 'backstory'.
As such I think that the system as is handles things well enough. It models someone who knows how to do stuff in an amount equal to how talented they might be over time. If a player wants to be someone special, then he should work that out with his DM.
One thing I have done is I have taken a bit from WoD. I allow players to tag a few skills with a narrow qualifier for a narrow area of expertise within that skill. They get a +1 to their skill in that area.
I think that handles most problems for 'but I want to be extra good at this one thing'. It hasn't come up, but I'd allow someone to add a new skill (narrow area) through play if they were doing it often.
>>44651936
>I guess I just don't think that the game is designed to model a PC being a master sword maker.
No, I agree. They're designed for dungeon crawls and on the fly rulings for non-adventuring things.
But if you've got a player who wants to do that, the point of the document is to show you can, and don't require houserules to do it; just know how to make doing the thing more than a passing "okay, you do the thing, back to dungeon #7" if your players want it to be part of the game.
That said I like a few houserules here and there, which is why I included a stab at one anyway.
>>44645980
They ruined d&d
>>44651936
>>44652163
I had dorf player, that wanted to be greatest blacksmith. My houserule was special feat, that gives expertise for using tools and other non-class skills. And also +1 for relevant stat. It also gave solved another problem with odd stat after reincarnation. For example I would use this feat for great ship captain or other master specialist that also adventurers.
>>44650100
>The perspective of the game is wrong.
Teehee.
>>44652776
I think that would be just fine. I imagine if a future player wants to be extra special and craft something legendary that would be a good way to go.
>>44652776
A feat seems a bit much, but if they reallly want it, I suppose it's not a bad compromise.
Very good call on the +1 stat, though, it's a bit weak even with that, but...that helps.
>>44650392
Read the DMG.
It gets a bit messy but if I'm running a game, I don't mind allowing folks to place skill points rather than using proficiency. As long as the math works out, which it isn't hard to do. You can even have skill points come in at a more gradual pace than the massive jumps in power whenever proficiency bonus increases.
I'd just remember to keep the casting bonus from proficiency and the attack bonus skills as well, for the extra granularity.
That said, proficiency is handy for noob players or for making a character on the fly if someone joins a game mid-session.
Is this the same shitposter who was sperging out about 5e having a maximum level of 20 in the 5e general a little while ago?
>>44659435
Got a link? I'd love to compare.
>>44660511
http://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/44626892/#44635847
Start there, follow the sperg.
>>44660641
Thankie.
>>44646384
>And if you did learn cooking at 10th level, you'd be a master cook despite having just taken the skill.
You realize that proficiency implies...proficiency, right? As in skilled in doing something, that's what proficient means. And learning a skill isn't something you just pick up and do. It takes downtime which can range from months to years.
I dislike 5e but the skill system is fine. It's the save system that's a problem, because it means you can easily die to save-or-sucks that you're not proficient in.
But skills?
I don't see why people are obsessed with realism in a game about elves and dwarves. Just narrate it in as a secret or whatever. "All this time, I've been concealing my secret cooking talent, now ready to be unleashed!"
It's not like anyone will care.
