Skills in 4e D&D
Number of Views :9239
If you listen to RPG Circus (and you should), you know that I love skill challenges. In the latest episode, I even talked about them a bit.
Skill challenges can be an incredibly useful tool in D&D. For years, DMs have used skill challenges without even realizing it, though without the guidelines the skill challenge introduces.
Skill challenges don’t limit the creativity, or remove the RP, any more than a single skill roll does. They actually enhance it, helping players think through issues and how they can best utilize their skills and talents. And the basis for skill challenges is… Skills.
Skills have been around since 2nd edition D&D, and have become a staple in many RPGs, though they have been drastically changed over time. From 2e “Bend Bars, Lift Gates” to 3e “Use Rope”, the number of skills has steadily whittled down to a mere 17. The relative lack of skills has led many to claim 4e has a lack of RP. The question could be raised: how does rolling dice increase RP? Most skills seen in previous editions have simply been combined into a new package. Listen, Spot & Search now form Perception, while Slight of Hand and Disable Device are now the basis for Thievery.
As one editorial in Dragon magazine stated, if you want your character to be able to play an instrument, then do so. If you want your character to forge a sword, pay the cost (to represent finding the materials) and say they forged it.
I’d like to go into more detail about Skill Challenges, but I’ll save that for another day. Until then, keep rolling 20′s.
I personally think that the combination of multiple skills into one category has been pretty convenient. I just started running my first 4e campaign a few weeks ago and I’m very excited to try out a skill challenge soon. I am a big fan of skills and personally think that they are underutilized in most campaigns.
“As one editorial in Dragon magazine stated, if you want your character to be able to play an instrument, then do so. If you want your character to forge a sword, pay the cost (to represent finding the materials) and say they forged it.”
You’ve hit on the only two things I don’t like about 4e skills. If my bard wants to try something with his instrument that would be covered by a skill roll if he were doing it any other way – for example, playing it extremely well in order to impress an NPC – it’s unfair for me to just say “You play awesome” when another character would have to make a Diplomacy check and roll high to get the same result sans lute. I’m not entirely convinced that having a bunch of bardic rituals where you play your instrument and then gain a bonus to skill rolls is really a better solution than just having a Perform skill.
Same thing with the Craft skill. Sure, I can tell my player, “You forge a sword.” But what if we agreed that normally takes 6 hours, and today he only has 4? How do I determine if the rush job had an affect on quality, or if he’s now a good enough smith to get away with it? What if the player wants to create something there isn’t stats for – say, a greataxe with a hidden compartment in the handle. How do I know how well the hidden compartment is concealed if he doesn’t roll Craft?
I suppose I could just add those two skills back into my game. I actually did add a Craft skill in place of Streetwise, which is useless to me. But the reasoning behind leaving them out annoys me. I don’t mind that Handle Animal is now Nature and all of that – but Craft and Perform can’t fall under any existing skill in a fair manner.
Good points Swordgleam. You have touched on a skill based system. We can clearly see who is better in forging a sword when two people have Forging skill of 5% against 90%. Many people who dislike 4e also dislike the fact that forging a sword is unfun and trivial. We are told to get on with the action, ie combat. Who cares is you built a sword hastily or perfectly dedicated?
Hi all,
I just had to comment on Swordgleam’s issue with craft and perform. I see how you have difficulty understanding how to use the current skills to represent the previous mechanics of perform and craft. Without concrete numbers and overly accurate descriptions of skills they may seem a little malleable. However, craft and perform are already included, albeit in a more abstract way.
Crafting a weapon is something that takes stregth, constitution and experience. I would say making a weapon should be ruled as a multi-skill roll, a sort of mini-skill challenge, possibly using athletics and dungeoneering. As for perform, diplomacy or bluff seems to fit the bill depending upon what you are trying to accomplish. With using an instrument in a challenge, it is more the effect you are trying to create that dictates the skill used.
4e skills seem to me to be more focused on manipulating the skills (which as Mark stated compromise multiple older skills) to your advantage. If you have played any of the White Wolf games you will be familiar with this style. I can see how this will not satisfy everyone, people desire more concrete rules. I suggest talking with your DM, or if you are the DM considering using a system where your character has a focus or specialty in a skill area, granting a bonus when the skill is used for a specific purpose. Anyone who has read the DMG knows that it has allowances for situational modifiers, and agreeing on a system where you have a predetermined bonuses for situations might alleviate your issue.
Thanks for reading this, and hope it helps.
I’m of the opinion that as DM, I determine how well he made that sword. If he had 6 hours to make it, it comes out fine. But on the fly, if he took 4 hours to make it, I’ll have his sword break if he rolls a 1 on an attack roll, since he rushed it.
Also, I think if the bard wants to play really good to impress someone, he should roll a diplomacy to represent his playing. If he’s trying to get people to watch his playing so his party can sneak past the bad guys, he rolls a bluff.
I think one difference betwen 3E and 4E that I don’t approve of is that 3E left the skill list more open to expansion and they provided additional skills in subsequent material. I’m a fan of combining some of the skills, it makes training them more useful, but I think it was somewhat arrogant of them to assume that they’d gotten the list right on the first try and would never have to ammend or expand it. For example, I think they should have added the perform skill in PHB2 to support the bard.
I feel this inflexibility on WOTCs part is going to start hurting them in the design department. For example, what are you going to do with the Religion skill in Dark Sun where there are no gods?
One skill I’d love to see added is something dealing with military experience (tactics, command, leadership, something along those lines). I like to run campaigns that include some large scale wars that the PCs play a part in (what good fantasy series doesn’t include at least a few large battles?) and I can make the current skils work (diplomacy or intimidate to represent leadership for example) but they don’t quite feel right. I think it’s a shame that they didn’t support the Warlord with something along those lines.
I actually agree, for the most part, with the quoted editorial. I think that the further we get from the ‘skill lists’ of 3e, the closer we’ll get to role playing. Of course, as a word of caution, I mostly play Swords & Wizardry, which has a combined total of zero skills, so there you go
I like to handle skills like I handle everything else in 0e campaigns–with panache. Seriously. If a player can’t convince me that his character knows how to build a sword, he’s not getting one built without paying. Whether that means that his background includes a stint as a smithy’s apprentice (with all the negatives that come from spending years as a ‘dirty commoner’) or a member of a dwarvish clan of ironshapers doesn’t really matter.
Role playing, for me, is about consistency, fun, and spontaneity.
I think that 4e is a great step in the right direction for where DnD needs to go, in my opinion. I love the wargame feel of combat in it, and I love the MMO-like character advancement. At the same time, they have abandoned the tome that was the skill list, allowing people to more fully role play their characters while also creating uniform, entertaining combat scenes.
.-= Brenton Haerr´s last blog ..Updates on Wanderlust =-.
The new martial practices cover forging, so at least we have rules for that now. I haven’t looked them over enough yet to be sure if I like them.
My problem with using bluff and diplomacy to represent playing an instrument is that now the bard has to be trained in both those skills, instead of just one for perform. And maybe he’s an awful liar – he’s just good at distracting people with his instrument.
I see how forging a sword seems trivial, but it really depends on the character and the game style. My Iron Heroes Man-at-Arms spends a lot of time forging weapons, because he wants things that the smiths don’t have on hand, and he likes to try to make masterwork stuff. I like having mechanical support for doing that kind of thing.
RE: Skill in performing an instrument and live performance.
What I did when one of my PCs wanted to learn a performing skill was write on her sheet of paper “Bandore: 0″ and then had her roll a skill challenge over the course of the next month or so in order to increase her skill level. The skill challenge gets longer every time she levels up her skill, it uses DEX and Insight as it’s base skills.
Performing isn’t just about the instrument though, which is why she’s proficient in the use of a single instrument (not entirely true, she’s also leveling her singing and another instrument,) and also why performing is always a Bandore and Insight challenge, rather than a straight Bandore roll.
Just my two cents!
I love the breaking sword on rolling a 1. I am always looking for creative ways in use natural 1s. Say, if your PC had a broken self-made longsword, would they take a minus in their attack roll because it’s no longer balanced in weight but upgrade in size in dice since the more jagged edges make a stab from it more damaging?
Personally I like that they streamlined the abilities so characters have to think about how to use their skills without having it spoonfed to them through a convoluted system that tries to cover every possible skill the way 3.5 did.
My PCs have a main skill and a secondary skill that gives them a +2 to the primary skill if they are successful. For example, if they have to liberate a wild animal from a cage, the main skill is thievery, but nature helps make it easier to get the beast to calm down long enough to help them unlock the cage. But they have to come up with the secondary skill themselves if they want that bonus and they have to be trained in them both.