5e Reintroducing Non-Weapon Proficiencies and 2e Dual Classing

[SowZ]

Personally, I am happy to return to dual classing if they do some balancing of it but NWP are a little much. I expect them to drop those in the next packet. Anyway, the next packet isn't out yet just something they've announced for us to look forward to, (or dread, depending, I suppose.) Our playtest group will let y'all know what we think.

[JusticeZero]

What was wrong with non-weapon proficiencies? I used them heavily.

[Loki_42]

Wait, when did they announce that?

Or was this supposed to be an April Fool's joke?

I don't get it.

I'm scared and confused.

[TuggyNE]

I'm scared and confused.

5e's main innovation: bringing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to roleplaying games!

Perhaps it should be called FUD-e?

[dps]

5e's main innovation: bringing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to roleplaying games!

Perhaps it should be called FUD-e?

Is it infected with The Fudd?

[navar100]

Wait, when did they announce that?

Or was this supposed to be an April Fool's joke?

I don't get it.

I'm scared and confused.

Not a good sign for 5E when you can't tell the difference between a true development and a joke.

[Joe the Rat]

Yeah, they should totally bring those back.
It would probably make the most sense for them to keep calling them "Skills," like they did for the last two and a half editions.

[Callin]

I for one shall welcome our new old overlords.

[JusticeZero]

Wasnt 2e dual that thing where you started again at first level and had to pretend you didn't know which end of a sword was which in spite of 15 levels as a sword specialist? And needed high stats to do? How is this worse than 'they have a skill system'??

[Hendel]

I could think of a word to describe 5e that starts with an F but it does not end with UDD.

Dual Class characters were a 1st edition AD&D concept that meant, yes JusticeZero, that even though I was a 9th level fighter, I could not use ANY abilities of that class until I became a 10th level whatever the second class was. At that point you could continue to use the original class abilities but you could never gain a level in it. It made for awkward adventures.

I can recall my characters that wanted to go down the bard route do that with fighter and thief. The second class usually got lots of experience points even though they could not do much to help other than stand there like a bag of HP (they kept their hit points from the original class during the second class growth phase).

It was not the same as multi-classing but it was allowed for humans and it was their way to get some extra benefits over the long run.

Non-weapon proficiencies were also a 1st edition AD&D creation (Unearthed Arcana) that built on the DM Guide's loose rules for character background skills and professions. We liked them. The Dungeoner and Wilderness Survival Guides really flushed them out and we used them often. That is why I was so glad to see skills in 3rd edition. The only downside is that now some DM and players will boil everything down to a roll versus trying to let the players work it out or role play it out. If you keep skills or proficiencies as guidelines rather than the end all be all of overcoming issues, I think it is a better way of gaming.

[JusticeZero]

As opposed to not letting people use character skills because 'theoe aren't any rules for that'? Given a choice of incompetence, i'd rather have skills.

[Hylas]

That is why I was so glad to see skills in 3rd edition. The only downside is that now some DM and players will boil everything down to a roll versus trying to let the players work it out or role play it out. If you keep skills or proficiencies as guidelines rather than the end all be all of overcoming issues, I think it is a better way of gaming.

Yeah, I started playing RPGs with 3.5 so I always assumed skills are what you can do and you can't do anything that isn't listed (not to mention that doing anything creative provoked an AoO in combat situations). Skills have just become way too important and DMs use them in all the wrong ways. Like perception/spot/listen/search/whatever. I hate perception and it has been the bane of many bad DMs. Like we need to find the key hidden in the statue's mouth.

"You see a large statue in this room, with its toothless mouth hanging open."
"Alright, that diary said something is hidden on the statue. I search the mouth."
"Okay, roll search!"
*14, VS the DM arbitrarily picking DC15*
"Oh, you don't find it there. I guess we can't continue because you specifically needed that key."
(This has happened more than once in games I've been in)

Perception is good for an opposed roll, but it shouldn't be used for finding your shoes in the morning or important plot objects.

I hope the final product has a reduced emphasis on skills.

[ngilop]

i myselflike both of these.

non weapon proficienies to me were great and soo much better than the 3rd ed skills.

instead of everything being reduced to roll d20 +random modifiers to =/> DC.

NWP actually encouraged you to RP your skill check and eve the fighter in his full plate could attempt to sneak up to the orc campsite at night, in 3rd ed that was never happening.

though I could see the dual class not being very good. I was more thinking they meant the old multi-classing where you took 2 (or more) classes at once and split your EXP earned between them.

[Icewraith]

Search really only works well when the players don't know what they're looking for.

Player is looking for a key in the statue based off a clue and immediately looks where it's supposed to be hidden? Don't bother rolling unless the statue is actually a complicated articulated mess for purposes of hiding the key.

In that case, the player finds some moving parts, and then the players have to puzzle out or use something like disable device to figure out how the statue is hiding the key.

On the other hand, when it comes to traps, secret compartments, that sort of thing.... those are great using search to find and/or avoid! It's best if you roll the dice yourself and have your players' modifiers written down so you don't have continual metagame "Hey guys hang on, I think I failed a search check so there must be something here" nonsense.

[JusticeZero]

When they're reasonably general is good. The split system in AD&D was a problem, though. It was always annoying that the Paladin could consistantly be sneakier than the Rogue because the holy guy had good Dex and the Rogue had to HiS, MS on somewhat anemic percentile checks to do the same.

[kyoryu]

Wasnt 2e dual that thing where you started again at first level and had to pretend you didn't know which end of a sword was which in spite of 15 levels as a sword specialist? And needed high stats to do? How is this worse than 'they have a skill system'??

Yep, it's a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist in modern games.

[Hylas]

Player is looking for a key in the statue based off a clue and immediately looks where it's supposed to be hidden? Don't bother rolling unless the statue is actually a complicated articulated mess for purposes of hiding the key.

I know that, and you know that, but bad DMs don't know that.

[Emmerask]

Seems to me that d&d is drifting more and more from rpg system to combat simulator system removing/streamlining everything none combat...

But even there its woefully shallow, so I don´t really know what 5e is trying to accomplish really :-/

[JusticeZero]

Well 3e skills were actually a bit TOO crunchy, and 4e ripped them out, so binary skills in 5e is reverting back to about where the sweet spot seems to be.

[Emmerask]

3e actually had too few skills for me, but it was a step in the right direction (for me).
But even there with its 30 or so skills I frequently had to approximate what skills might be applicable.
Rolemaster with its 100+ skills has the correct approach I think

As for binary skills (have or don´t have) I really don´t like that, it restricts character development, maybe my Hero wants to be the best brewer of fine ale there is in all the land, too bad I´m just as good as everyone else -.-

As for the old multiclassing approach, not only does it make zero sense (why would I forget everything I learned???) it also punishes those classes that require more extensive builds to be a viable party addition (ie the none casters).

Overall the more I hear about 5e the less impressed I become, everything that could promote roleplaying is streamlined or removed entirely and the combat seems not to get a complexity boost but stays roughly at the same level of the old editions ie light complexity with very little tactics involved.

[navar100]

The crunch problem of 3E skills is cross-class expense combined with some classes getting too few skill points and social skills having fixed DCs instead of being opposed rolls. The flavor problem of 3E is the DM arbitrarily setting skill DCs too high "to be a challenge", not allowing a character with a high skill modifier just be that good in that skill and making characters without that skill, because the crunch prevents them from having it, into incompetent chumps. The skill system itself is fine for its own sake.

Get rid of the cross class penalty, give some classes more skill points, and have social skills be opposed rolls and the problems go away. Pathfinder only did one and a half out of three - no cross-class penalty and allows for bonus skill point per level in favored class for extra skill points if a player wants it. They unfortunately kept some classes at 2 + Int skill points per level and set DCs for social skills.

[Hendel]

Pathfinder only did one and a half out of three - no cross-class penalty and allows for bonus skill point per level in favored class for extra skill points if a player wants it. They unfortunately kept some classes at 2 + Int skill points per level and set DCs for social skills.

Actually, Pathfinder did change the social skills in many ways.

Diplomacy DC, for example, is set as a number plus the opposed character's charisma bonus. So in 3.5 to go from Indifferent to Friendly was a static DC 15, in Pathfinder that would be a DC 15 + their cha modifier. Now this does not make it easier, but it is a sliding scale and makes the NPC's ability scores come into play. So I would say that was an improvement.

[obryn]

I don't like skill systems at all in a class/level game like D&D. In 4e, they're muted enough I don't always care, but I prefer a much more freeform approach that leverages the system's strengths. Those strengths being class, race, and level.

Maybe add in a secondary skill - basically "what did you do before adventuring" and you're pretty well set.

Does a Barbarian know how to climb a cliff? Of course. Does an Elf know how to track? Probably. Does a human from a coastal city swim? More likely than not.

Skills belong in a skill-based system like Savage Worlds, GURPS, BRP, etc. I think they're an awkward and ill-fitting piece in D&D of any stripe.

-O