So I was looking through my copy of a Barbarians of Lemuria game (Legends of Steel) and was rereading up on the careers and it hit me, how hard would it be to use those instead of individual skills? And for this idea, I'm going to stick with 5e's system, as I don't have access to any earlier editions, other than Sine Nomine's Scarlet Heroes.
Now, in 5e, you have things called Backgrounds that gives a couple of appropriate skills, maybe some tool proficiencies and gear. Then you get to add your class' skills to the list, which vary in number.
The issue is that in the long scheme of things, people pick up a wide variety of skills over their lives. Especially those that wander, and in a fantasy setting. Horsemanship, arms care (as in weapons and armour), languages, athletics, perception, various lore and laws of whatever kingdoms and/or nations visited, basic survival. And that's just the guy who swings blades for a living.
And D&D has always had a bad habit of assuming that every single skill is just as important as a magic spell (and that was before the introduction of Feats.)
So I was wondering if we could change 'Backgrounds' into 'Careers' in a similar manner to the BoL and how I understood AD&D 2e attempt at Secondary Skills?
Each class would get a certain amount, and any time a player wants to do something appropriate (and assuming they have the tools available, if it requires it) they get Proficiency + proper stat modifier. Race would also dictate a Background as a lot of them have typical habits and skills of their own, like Dwarves typically have the abilities to Stone Cunning and are Miners and/or Smiths, among other things.
For example:
Fighter would get three, including Race (So a Dwarven Soldier would have Dwarf, Soldier and one more of choice) because Fighters pick up a lot of incidental knowledge as they tend to wander the second most compared to other classes in formative years.
Bards would also get three.
Thieves/Rogues would get four, because let's not harm the Skill Monkey's niche but one would be Thief which is wider than say a Criminal background.
Casters like Priests/Clerics and Wizards (and the others) would get two, simply because the religious tend to typically sequester themselves until they are ready to face the world, whereas magic users find their 'Art' is very demanding and requiring focus. Warlocks being an exception, because they are either granted, or steal, their powers, so they would get 3 background choices.
Just an idea. Wonder if it would break anything as we understand the system.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1034030Fighter would get three, including Race (So a Dwarven Soldier would have Dwarf, Soldier and one more of choice) because Fighters pick up a lot of incidental knowledge as they tend to wander the second most compared to other classes in formative years
I don't have BoL, so let me know if it works like this: Instead of having skills, you're going to figure out which Badkground is relevant. If the player has it they roll proficiency + att. If they don't have it, they roll att (?) Examples:
1. Pick a lock: Criminal + Dex
2. Tell funny story: Entertainer + Cha
3. Find the path: Hermit or Outlander + Wis
4. Sway the crowd: Entertainer? Noble? Folk Hero? Soldier? + Cha
5. Notice something: ?
For example 4, all of those Backgrounds could work, depending on the circumstance: A noble could deliver a biting riposte in court which sways the opinion of other nobles. A folk hero could spark the commoners to revolution. A solider could give the townsfolk the confidence they need to defend their homes against orc invaders.
For example 5, there's no Background which stands out as "the Perception guy." Maybe each Background notices things in their area: A soldier notices the imposter's uniform is wrong, A scholar notices the book has been altered, A guild artisan notices a flaw in craftsmanship, etc. Sort of like Gumshoe System.
I like your "Race" as a Background, I'm assuming it applies to all classes? So a Human Wizard gets 2, but an Elf Wizard gets 1 and Elf?
I don't see Thief > Criminal; seems to me they're about the same thing. In fact it might be Criminal > Thief, since the latter is a subset of the former. At any rate, why create something new if you don't have to?
Good logic with the casters.
Quote from: Aglondir;1034082I don't have BoL, so let me know if it works like this: Instead of having skills, you're going to figure out which Badkground is relevant. If the player has it they roll proficiency + att. If they don't have it, they roll att (?) Examples:
1. Pick a lock: Criminal + Dex
2. Tell funny story: Entertainer + Cha
3. Find the path: Hermit or Outlander + Wis
4. Sway the crowd: Entertainer? Noble? Folk Hero? Soldier? + Cha
5. Notice something: ?
Given how important spotting things are, I'd say just being an adventurer gives you proficiency in the skill Perception.
The main reason Thief is wider skill set than say Criminal, because it can be used for more things than just picking locks, it's the background used for climbing walls, pick pockets, some tumbling, as I was thinking of breaking down 'Criminal' into various types, like beggar, burglar, spy, which grants you SOME of the Thief skills. And is a better choice for the Non-Rogue types.
Quote from: Aglondir;1034082For example 4, all of those Backgrounds could work, depending on the circumstance: A noble could deliver a biting riposte in court which sways the opinion of other nobles. A folk hero could spark the commoners to revolution. A solider could give the townsfolk the confidence they need to defend their homes against orc invaders.
Yes, but there's limitations, you wouldn't try and use a Noble's speech with a bunch of tomb raiders or barbarians, nor would you get much traction with a Soldier.
Quote from: Aglondir;1034082For example 5, there's no Background which stands out as "the Perception guy." Maybe each Background notices things in their area: A soldier notices the imposter's uniform is wrong, A scholar notices the book has been altered, A guild artisan notices a flaw in craftsmanship, etc. Sort of like Gumshoe System.
General perception is due to being an adventurer. That said, I like the idea of each background having it's own expertise at noticing things. I really like that...
Quote from: Aglondir;1034082I like your "Race" as a Background, I'm assuming it applies to all classes? So a Human Wizard gets 2, but an Elf Wizard gets 1 and Elf?
That is the idea.
Quote from: Aglondir;1034082I don't see Thief > Criminal; seems to me they're about the same thing. In fact it might be Criminal > Thief, since the latter is a subset of the former. At any rate, why create something new if you don't have to?
Like I said above, I was thinking of making Criminal into a bunch of types but not too many.
Quote from: Aglondir;1034082Good logic with the casters.
Thank you.
This strikes me as being a more rigorous way of doing 13th Age's skill system, which I have had misxed success with. Had a similar convo with one of my group the other night, about making Backgrounds "mini-classes", so I'm looking forward to seeing how this thread develops.
I think 5e would be improved just by removing the skill system.
No system means the players just do things and you let the player know if his character thinks he can do that.
Then you only need to create something skill related for the classes that get something like that.
A champion is a remarkable Athlete, half Prof bonus on physical ability score save, 1.5 carry capacity, 1.5 jump distance, 1.5 climb and jump speeds.
Rogues would get ability checks to mechanically open locks, find traps, hide, move silently, disable traps, climb any wall, an ability check could be a roll under system where half Prof bonus is added to your score and reliable talent is "disadvantage" on the roll.
The monsters in the monster manual aren't designed to handle athletics prof. Keeping that a raw opposed strength check helps the monsters survive.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1034102The main reason Thief is wider skill set than say Criminal, because it can be used for more things than just picking locks, it's the background used for climbing walls, pick pockets, some tumbling, as I was thinking of breaking down 'Criminal' into various types, like beggar, burglar, spy, which grants you SOME of the Thief skills. And is a better choice for the Non-Rogue types.
Each of the three "rogue" backgrounds (Urchin, Charlatan, and Criminal) occupy a different thematic space:
The Urchin gets a proficiency with theives tools, but from the description it sounds like they only steal when they have to, and probably only if a convenient circumstance presents iitself. I'd definitely give them climb and tumbling, skills they hone from quick getaways. Definitely stealth and some sort of "parkour" skill.
The Charlatan is the master of deception: con games, disguises, fast-talk. These are the guys who trick you out of your money rather than beat you up for it. Even though most of the examples are low-brow and street, the forgery and disguise make it perfect for a spy, even one from a court background. I don't get a climb walls vibe here, but definitely social skills (bluff, gather info, perform.) Also sleight of hand for the card tricks and palming objects. Acrobatics for the circus troupe that bilks the rubes.
But it's the Criminal who has a sharpest edge. Take a look at the specialties: blackmail, burglar, enforcer, fence, higwayman, hired killer, pickpocket, smuggler. This is your true thief, the guy in it for the money and not afraid to get his hands dirty. I'd grant him climb and lockpicking from second-story work, SOH, stealth, appraise... but the social skills are harder to justify, unless it's part of a unique concept. The criminal's more likely to let a dagger in the ribs do the talking.
Quote from: Aglondir;1034206Each of the three "rogue" backgrounds (Urchin, Charlatan, and Criminal) occupy a different thematic space:
The Urchin gets a proficiency with theives tools, but from the description it sounds like they only steal when they have to, and probably only if a convenient circumstance presents iitself. I'd definitely give them climb and tumbling, skills they hone from quick getaways. Definitely stealth and some sort of "parkour" skill.
The Charlatan is the master of deception: con games, disguises, fast-talk. These are the guys who trick you out of your money rather than beat you up for it. Even though most of the examples are low-brow and street, the forgery and disguise make it perfect for a spy, even one from a court background. I don't get a climb walls vibe here, but definitely social skills (bluff, gather info, perform.) Also sleight of hand for the card tricks and palming objects. Acrobatics for the circus troupe that bilks the rubes.
But it's the Criminal who has a sharpest edge. Take a look at the specialties: blackmail, burglar, enforcer, fence, higwayman, hired killer, pickpocket, smuggler. This is your true thief, the guy in it for the money and not afraid to get his hands dirty. I'd grant him climb and lockpicking from second-story work, SOH, stealth, appraise... but the social skills are harder to justify, unless it's part of a unique concept. The criminal's more likely to let a dagger in the ribs do the talking.
You make a very valid point. All right, so let's make Criminal, Thief or Rogue, whatever you want to call it, the default Thief set, then. Sometimes less is more.
As an aside, I've always though that the Soldier and Knight backgrounds (and maybe 1 or 2 others) should pick up a proficiency or two. A knight/soldier who can't wear armour, use any weapons, or carry a shield? That's the sort of thing that bugs me.
Quote from: Gorilla_Zod;1034264As an aside, I've always though that the Soldier and Knight backgrounds (and maybe 1 or 2 others) should pick up a proficiency or two. A knight/soldier who can't wear armour, use any weapons, or carry a shield? That's the sort of thing that bugs me.
Soldiers covers everything from light skirmishers who aren't trained in heavy armour, archers who are also typically armed in a leather jack, all the way up to Cavalry, which is the Knight or Cataphract.
The Class is HOW you want to fight, skills or Backgrounds is both What and Why. In MY perception.
And Knights of The 'Order' isn't actual Knights, but rather members of a fraternity with a stated goal. That said, most of them would be Fighter types.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1034277Soldiers covers everything from light skirmishers who aren't trained in heavy armour, archers who are also typically armed in a leather jack, all the way up to Cavalry, which is the Knight or Cataphract.
The Class is HOW you want to fight, skills or Backgrounds is both What and Why. In MY perception.
And Knights of The 'Order' isn't actual Knights, but rather members of a fraternity with a stated goal. That said, most of them would be Fighter types.
Yeah I hear you. But the variant noble: knight background is (unless I'm being too medieval authentic about it) meant to represent some sort of elite warrior noble.
Our group likes backgrounds, don't get me wrong, cos it reminds us of RQ and that's a good thing. But at the same time we feel there's a bit more that can be done with them. The Primeval Thule setting and Adventures in Middle Earth take steps in the direction I'm talking about, by turning them into 'presents/futures' rather than backgrounds. With Fifth Edition it feels very much like "Hi, I was a [Background] and now I'm a [Class]", and while that works just fine, there are other ways to skin the goblin.
Quote from: Gorilla_Zod;1034278Yeah I hear you. But the variant noble: knight background is (unless I'm being too medieval authentic about it) meant to represent some sort of elite warrior noble.
Our group likes backgrounds, don't get me wrong, cos it reminds us of RQ and that's a good thing. But at the same time we feel there's a bit more that can be done with them. The Primeval Thule setting and Adventures in Middle Earth take steps in the direction I'm talking about, by turning them into 'presents/futures' rather than backgrounds. With Fifth Edition it feels very much like "Hi, I was a [Background] and now I'm a [Class]", and while that works just fine, there are other ways to skin the goblin.
Fair point, I would make an argument then, that the Knight variant of Noble background can only be taken by Fighters, Paladins and maybe Rangers (who are former or still active, nobleman's Huntsmen.) Depends, of course, on the setting. :)
The proposed system reminds me of a more generous version of 13th Age. Instead of one background you get 2-4? Everyone would have strong skill-related utility from level 1, but would not improve much (beyond adding prof bonus, but I take it would not have the opp to acquire more "backgrounds").
I feel like, since it is a semi-throwback to earlier editions, that 5E does promote this sort of approach. I think, at the very least, tacking on a career system would certainly not be anathema to the spirit of 5E. I would be curious to see how it ran, particularly since I've always been a fan of BoL's careers system.
The BoL career system is the bee's knees as far as I'm concerned, it's very flexible and hits the sweet spot between "no skills" and "too many skills." It works great with OD&D -- players have 3 points to allot to Careers, max rank is 3. Checks are 2d6 + Career rank +/- Attribute mod +/- difficulty modifier, consulting the Reaction Table for the result.
Quote from: nightlamp;1034413The BoL career system is the bee's knees as far as I'm concerned, it's very flexible and hits the sweet spot between "no skills" and "too many skills." It works great with OD&D -- players have 3 points to allot to Careers, max rank is 3. Checks are 2d6 + Career rank +/- Attribute mod +/- difficulty modifier, consulting the Reaction Table for the result.
What's the reaction table spread again?
I've always felt strongly that a game with the level of abstraction of D+D should not have anything like a skill system (or even skill based classes); rather it should base rolls for such activities on attribute scores (perhaps plus level) and that's it. Pick a lock? DX. Run up a hill? Con. Climb a rope? ST. And so forth.
I do like "career" better than "skill." It's a great deal broader and allows the DM out of a quandary. "I'm going to scale up the side of that stone wall, hide in the shadow of the sign, and listen on the conversation." Instead of "Oops, you didn't put ranks in Climb," it's "Oh, okay, one of your careers is Thief...that covers all of this."
As for the roll...I lean very strongly toward dice pools for skills these days. Avoids the need to have modifiers of +20 on a d20 roll to separate the men from the boys.
Quote from: fearsomepirate;1034635As for the roll...I lean very strongly toward dice pools for skills these days. Avoids the need to have modifiers of +20 on a d20 roll to separate the men from the boys.
What mechanic do you use? I've never heard of 5E using dice pools for skills checks.
Quote from: Aglondir;1034643What mechanic do you use? I've never heard of 5E using dice pools for skills checks.
I've been experimenting, have yet to inflict it on anyone.
First method:
1. DC is from 1 to 5 (10->1, 15->2, 20->3, 25->4, 30->5)
2. Roll [skill mod] d6s
3. You must get [DC] successes, where a success is a 5 or 6.
Second method:
1. DC is from 1 to 5 (10->1, 15->2, 20->3, 25->4, 30->5)
2. Roll [skill mod] d6s. Discard all but [Ability mod].
3. You must get [DC] successes, where a success is a 5 or 6.
Third method:
1. DC ranges from 5 to 25.
2. Your modifier is just your ability. If you have expertise, add your proficiency.
3. You get [PROF] tries, minimum one.
I like the first and 3rd best.
Dice rolling mechanics don't interest me; fixation on that sort of thing almost always results in 20 different and totally inconsistent ways of accomplishing the same thing. How many different ways do we need to figure out whether you did something for which you have a ~1/2 or ~1/4 chance of success? Honestly, D+D would not be very functionally different if they had just treated everything with the 1d6 roll that was the basis of Chainmail standard combat and the surprise, listen, open doors, etc. rolls in early editions.
Quote from: fearsomepirate;1034648I've been experimenting, have yet to inflict it on anyone.
First method:
1. DC is from 1 to 5 (10->1, 15->2, 20->3, 25->4, 30->5)
2. Roll [skill mod] d6s
3. You must get [DC] successes, where a success is a 5 or 6.
This one. You are wise with the 5 or 6. it's a nice probability curve.
Dice pools allow a greater range of difficulty with a coarse grain. They're nice.
For reference:
Maxed out at level 1 (+5 mod)
| DC | 5e | d6 |
| 10/1 | 80% | 87% |
| 15/2 | 55% | 54% |
| 20/3 | 30% | 21% |
| 25/4 | 5% | 4.5% |
| 30/5 | 0% | 0.4% |
So it maps pretty closely onto 5e here. But what about somebody with no proficiency and a 12 ability score? Big complaint of 5e players is that my +5 mod to Acrobatics doesn't feel much different than Clumsy McBumblefuck's +1.
| DC | 5e | d6 |
| 10/1 | 60% | 33% |
| 15/2 | 35% | 0% |
| 20/3 | 15% | 0% |
| 25/4 | 0% | 0% |
| 30/5 | 0% | 0% |
So there's a pretty big gap between somebody with skill and somebody who doesn't know what the hell they're doing. 3.x tried to capture this, but in the d20 system, this means adjustments are all over the damn place.