Okay, I know I'm not the only one that finds Pathfinder's skill system to be at times absolutely ridiculously broken, and not at all narrative friendly. It can lead to moments like this (watch until you hear the DM say, "oh, you fail."
What I want to know is, do you think it would be possible to replace this and this with pages 57 - 62 of of this document?
This is not a joke, and I'm not trying to start a popcorn thread or a flaming edition war. I really want to know if the community, that has proven over the years to be much smarter than I am, thinks this is a feasible way to run skills while keeping all else in Pathfinder the same?
The one thing that struck me right away was a difference that needs addressing is the way proficiency in a skill is run, but taking the proficiency bonus progressions from the class guide (earlier in the document) you could easily break them up into: Martial, Utility, and Caster progressions and apply to the wealth of Pathfinder character options as table agrees and go from there. Martial and Casters would get to choose two skills that get their proficiency bonus, and utility characters would get four skills to choose to add their proficiency bonus onto.
I will have to read that document later to see how it makes the narrative better.
edit: As long as the dice matter the character will still likely fail because they represent the character's ability to convey the message, not the player's.
I will have to read that document later to see how it makes the narrative better.
edit: As long as the dice matter the character will still likely fail because they represent the character's ability to convey the message, not the player's.
Very true Wraith. The dice will still lead to failure regardless of player skill... That's a different thread though. I still feel like this set of skill rules is just more elegant and simple. Maybe not necessarily more narrative friendly, but certainly much more time friendly. Good point, though, about the dice.
How will the new rules not lead to exactly the same situation?
Same roll, same DC, if you roll bad you fail. I feel you're trying to solve a problem other than the one in the video. At least, I hope you are, because the DnD rule doesn't solve that problem.
Personally I don't see how this method does anything but making leveling up easier and possibly saving some space on a character sheet. Instead of spending skill points every level, you pick skills once and add a static, level-based modifier. Essentially, you just pick a number of skills, and auto-max them at each level. It's less things for a player to choose, and less book keeping, but game play should remain largely unaffected:
Gm calls for a check
Roll d20
Add modifier
Compare to DC
Determine Success
Still the exact same process.
I will have to read that document later to see how it makes the narrative better.
edit: As long as the dice matter the character will still likely fail because they represent the character's ability to convey the message, not the player's.
Not sure if this is MendedWall's aim, but the biggest difference I see (other than the sheer absurdity of 1 to 20 skill ranks) is the lack of detailed charts and long-winded explanations of the skills function in the 5E doc. From that perspective, the 5E skill rules do have superior narrative power, in that they leave more up to the GM and the player to describe and adjudicate.
Not sure if this is MendedWall's aim, but the biggest difference I see (other than the sheer absurdity of 1 to 20 skill ranks) is the lack of detailed charts and long-winded explanations of the skills function in the 5E doc. From that perspective, the 5E skill rules do have superior narrative power, in that they leave more up to the GM and the player to describe and adjudicate.I will have to read that document later to see how it makes the narrative better.
edit: As long as the dice matter the character will still likely fail because they represent the character's ability to convey the message, not the player's.
In the video the guy failed because of a low roll despite giving a good speech so I thought that was the problem to be solved. Otherwise I am lost at the reason for the suggestion of the alternate system.
Very true Wraith. The dice will still lead to failure regardless of player skill... That's a different thread though. I still feel like this set of skill rules is just more elegant and simple. Maybe not necessarily more narrative friendly, but certainly much more time friendly. Good point, though, about the dice.I will have to read that document later to see how it makes the narrative better.
edit: As long as the dice matter the character will still likely fail because they represent the character's ability to convey the message, not the player's.
From the video the guy failed on a 9 despite a good speech so I thought that was the issue. I don't see how it is more time friendly though. It does take that much time to put ranks into skills at level up, and is actually one of the more simple functions. Choosing feats and spells seem to be the timesinks for most people who can not level up quickly. I also dont have to refer to charts constantly when using skills in play. Even if I do it is just a quick glance to find a modifier.
edit: I read his reply to my first comment, and I see the video caused a disconnect vs making things more clear. I am curious to know how much skill checks normally go with other people now. When I play the time is used is normally inconsequential. They tend to go a lot faster than a damage or attack roll.
I'm not a fan of game systems that take a "loosey goosey" approach to figuring out DCs or TNs. Without a table of DCs, it's really difficult for a new GM to set a DC because they have no context about the setting and how difficult any given task is supposed to be. It results in a game with really inconsistent DCs that will likely inexplicably scale with the PC levels. And most of the time, I feel like it's just game designer laziness justified as a "rules lite" approach.
More relevant to the topic, I think 5E actually does have tables establishing skill check DCs. The catch is that it's only in the DMG.
I'm not a fan of game systems that take a "loosey goosey" approach to figuring out DCs or TNs. Without a table of DCs, it's really difficult for a new GM to set a DC because they have no context about the setting and how difficult any given task is supposed to be. It results in a game with really inconsistent DCs that will likely inexplicably scale with the PC levels. And most of the time, I feel like it's just game designer laziness justified as a "rules lite" approach.
More relevant to the topic, I think 5E actually does have tables establishing skill check DCs. The catch is that it's only in the DMG.
All true. I believe the DCs are in the DMG so that the DM can learn and be guided as to how to set appropriate numbers. The removal of the info from the players side, I think, puts the frame of mind more into "I'll try this", rather than, "I can or can't do this, regardless of what the DM says or thinks". It does remove player entitlement, but in many cases that is a good thing.
In the end, it all comes down to whether or not you have a good group dynamic, and a good GM. If you don't, the lite rules don't help, but the standard rules are detrimental.
oh...sorry. IMHO...
Not sure if this is MendedWall's aim, but the biggest difference I see (other than the sheer absurdity of 1 to 20 skill ranks) is the lack of detailed charts and long-winded explanations of the skills function in the 5E doc. From that perspective, the 5E skill rules do have superior narrative power, in that they leave more up to the GM and the player to describe and adjudicate.I will have to read that document later to see how it makes the narrative better.
edit: As long as the dice matter the character will still likely fail because they represent the character's ability to convey the message, not the player's.
This is more or less what I was saying. The 5e skills are a bit more "nebulous." Some of the things that I saw, that to me made it seem more narrative friendly, are: 1) not every closet case is covered, nor is it supposed to be. 2) Passive checks cover routine tasks without constant rolling; you don't have to take 10 on a check, you are just passively taking 10 all the time, and the GM has a number at hand to check up against DCs. 3) Group checks are streamlined, everybody checks, majority rules.
Essentially the way I see the 5e skill sets working is the player says, "I tell the guard..." and the GM can call for an opposed skill check, or set a DC based off of the guards background and disposition, instead of the player saying, "I use Diplomacy." See the difference? Granted it is a subtle difference, and dice will, obviously, still play a factor, but the 5e skills give the table the ability to run the narrative first and foremost, and only use the skill checks if the challenge might fail based off of varying circumstances.
I actually prefer that there are not a strict table of DCs covering every situation. That way the players ability and the current narrative situation set the DC, not a table in a book. As mentioned this requires a lot of trust between the GM and players, but, for me, that is how any P&P RPG should be played anyway. I realize not everyone has that luxury, but I'm asking for a hypothetical situation anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is more or less what I was saying. The 5e skills are a bit more "nebulous." Some of the things that I saw, that to me made it seem more narrative friendly, are: 1) not every closet case is covered, nor is it supposed to be. 2) Passive checks cover routine tasks without constant rolling; you don't have to take 10 on a check, you are just passively taking 10 all the time, and the GM has a number at hand to check up against DCs. 3) Group checks are streamlined, everybody checks, majority rules.
Essentially the way I see the 5e skill sets working is the player says, "I tell the guard..." and the GM can call for an opposed skill check, or set a DC based off of the guards background and disposition, instead of the player saying, "I use Diplomacy." See the difference? Granted it is a subtle difference, and dice will, obviously, still play a factor, but the 5e skills give the table the ability to run the narrative first and foremost, and only use the skill checks if the challenge might fail based off of varying circumstances.
I actually prefer that there are not a strict table of DCs covering every situation. That way the players ability and the current narrative situation set the DC, not a table in a book. As mentioned this requires a lot of trust between the GM and players, but, for me, that is how any P&P RPG should be played anyway. I realize not everyone has that luxury, but I'm asking for a hypothetical situation anyway.
1) It's "corner case," closet case is something different. GMs set most DCs in Pathfinder too, the only difference is that new GMs have fewer examples to go by to set their arbitrary DCs. So it's harder on the GMs and exactly the same for the Players.
2)The only difference between passive checks and taking a 10 is the GM knows the player's modifier, a fix for which is so trivial I shouldn't even have to mention it.
3)Group Checks in PF don't exist. It's a mechanic added in 5E and by their very nature, added mechanics increase complexity, not decrease. If you like Group Checks, you should add them, but it's a poor excuse for adopting an entirely new system.
Both systems are exactly as narrative or as gamist as the groups is. Both systems can "Use Diplomacy" or "Tell the Guard". Both systems come down to Roll vs. DC set by the GM and the rest is up to the group.
Obviously, I don't care for 5E's skill system, but both systems handle what you're describing in exactly the same manner. The main difference between 5E and Pathfinder is in the book keeping. The other difference is much lower modifiers in general, while the DCs remain unchanged. So high level DnD characters can't really attempt the same impossible checks (30'+ long jump) a high level PF character can.
A factor might be how a GM/DM is presenting the information to his/her players. Many players, especially novices, will adopt the style and language a GM/DM uses. If a GM uses "mechanic-speak" instead of narrative players will follow suit.
Also if players and GMs are power gamers, min/maxers, or otherwise interested in the character for it's component parts rather than seeing the sheet as a character, then "mechanic-speak" seems to be more commonly used (In my experience).
Essentially the way I see the 5e skill sets working is the player says, "I tell the guard..." and the GM can call for an opposed skill check, or set a DC based off of the guards background and disposition, instead of the player saying, "I use Diplomacy." See the difference? Granted it is a subtle difference, and dice will, obviously, still play a factor, but the 5e skills give the table the ability to run the narrative first and foremost, and only use the skill checks if the challenge might fail based off of varying circumstances.
You're supposed to run Diplomacy checks as you describe in the first scenario. You're not talking about game mechanics and rules here. You're talking about how players and GMs use the rules.
I actually prefer that there are not a strict table of DCs covering every situation. That way the players ability and the current narrative situation set the DC, not a table in a book. As mentioned this requires a lot of trust between the GM and players, but, for me, that is how any P&P RPG should be played anyway. I realize not everyone has that luxury, but I'm asking for a hypothetical situation anyway.
My criticism is not about trust or corner cases. It's about a game establishing context. If I'm a new GM to a game, I need to know what tasks are easy and what tasks are hard. If there's a Climb skill, there better be a table that shows the DCs for common Climb checks. Otherwise, I'd have no idea this is supposed to be a game where climbing up a rope is easy.
I'm not sure exactly how this thread turned adversarial, but it obviously did. Quantum Steve, and Cyrad, whether you meant them to or not your posts come off like this: "you're an idiot, and you clearly should play a different game." Way to be a welcoming community. Not sure if you actually read the OP but I actually said I posted the question because I wanted the communities' opinions and advice. At no point did I say that the game you're playing sucks and I hate you all for playing it, but somehow everybody decided that's what I meant, and reacted accordingly.
Having said that, I am grateful for the actual clarity and pragmatic advice that everyone has brought. After thinking about it for a bit, I think part of the reason I like the 5e system is because the actual language of the rules reads as if it is designed for a shared narrative. The Pathfinder skill rules read like a how-to manual for fixing your car, to me at least. I also really like the fact that the DCs are nebulous and are set by the GM based off of their perception of all variables. Cyrad, you are right that for new GMs that definitely makes things more difficult, not less. I guess as a GM that's been doing it for a while, I don't like the conscription of Pathfinder's DC sets. (Diplomacy, I'm looking at you.)
Last thing is in regards to the group mechanics. Pathfinder does actually have those, it's called Aid Another, which I've kind of always hated, because it forces the table to keep rolling and adding +2s onto somebody else's check. In that sense, 5e's group mechanic does actually streamline play, in those situations.
I don't see their post as insulting at all. I see them as saying "there is not really enough difference to change systems + <whatever else they had to say>".
What did they say that you took offense to?
The thing is... this isn't exactly a narrative; it's an interactive story. When you read a book, the entire book is already set in place. The end of the story is already established from before you even open the cover. Often, future books are also set in place. The conclusion of a whole series of books is often one of the first things an author writes. When you read the great stories of history, you don't read about the people who failed ignobly. You read about the ones who accomplished something; usually against significant odds. But when you're playing an interactive story, you don't yet know if you're a success that will be told in stories for the ages, or if you're just some schmuck who tripped and fell over a cliff and died. The character you play is separate from you, the player. So yes, it does make sense that one bad roll can severely compromise or even kill you. It's the rare characters who succeed at something amazing that are talked about for a long time, but not every single character is going to be entitled to that privilege. So any argument stemming from the nature of the game as a "narrative" is already way off-point.
I see my characters as potential heroes also, but many groups expect* to succeed, so for them it is a narrative. It threw me for a loop when I first heard about it since I learned the game under a "killer GM".
*The GM knows he won't let anyone die, and/or the players know or expect for the GM to not allow them to die, and sometimes even not suffer any hardships.
PS: You may have been saying that the players should suspend the belief(factual knowledge) that they will succeed. In that case I agree 100% vs only about 90%. :)
I don't see their post as insulting at all. I see them as saying "there is not really enough difference to change systems + <whatever else they had to say>".
What did they say that you took offense to?
Good question, in Quantum's case it was these two things: "It's "corner case," closet case is something different." Pointing out an inadvertent misused phrase is nit-picky arguing, and sets the tone of ad hominem; and "a fix for which is so trivial I shouldn't even have to mention it." The tone of this is both superior and dismissive, which demeans the recipient of the advice.
For Cyrad it was this: "You're supposed to run Diplomacy checks as you describe in the first scenario. You're not talking about game mechanics and rules here. You're talking about how players and GMs use the rules." Which may not have been meant as offensive, but, also has an air of superiority and condescension. Especially since I actually posted the thread to talk about the differences in the mechanics, and how they are applied. Believe it or not, I'm actually here to discuss the mechanics. I understand that how players and GMs use the rules dictates the collective story they are telling. My point was that I think the Pathfinder rules as written, very much lend themselves to players saying, "I use diplomacy," because the specific situation can only be resolved that way, while the 5e rules actually make allowance for player and GM to find creative ways to let a character make a check for whatever they are doing:
Similarly, when your dwarf fighter uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma.
That's why I said that, to me, the 5e rules read like they are designed to further the narrative without mucking things up. They seem designed to not make a player worry about whether they are "trained" in a particular skill, or not. Simply say what you want your character to do and the GM and player will find a way to do it.
Lastly, another reason that I like the 5e rules seems to be why some people think they are not useful. It's because they give a very vague table of DCs and let the GM decide the difficulty of a task based off of all variables. Thereby the GM could actually adjust the check based off of what the speaker says, as opposed to just adding a circumstance bonus to their roll. On page 58 in the 5e rules is a table of typical DCs that just lists them as: very easy, easy, medium, hard, very hard, and nearly impossible. Again, I get that means a GM doesn't have a specific thing to point at and say, "this is the number, I know because it's right here in this book," and for some people that's scary because they don't trust their GM.
Edit: I also want to point out that regardless of character death, it is a narrative. An interactive story is still a story, thus it is a narrative. Have you ever read any of the Game of Thrones books, or watched the show? Characters that could be described as "main characters" die all the time. Character death does not change the narrative status of this or any role playing game.
Okay, I know I'm not the only one that finds Pathfinder's skill system to be at times absolutely ridiculously broken, and not at all narrative friendly. It can lead to moments like this (watch until you hear the DM say, "oh, you fail."
I feel like that is worth a hefty circumstance bonus.
@Wraithstrike
I realized, after the fact, why I felt like the thread became adversarial. Here's why. My original post was an honest ask for people to tell me if replacing one skill system with another was possible, and then help me figure out what things I would need to worry about to do it. One of the reasons I thought about the switch is because the systems are pretty similar but provide more leniency and creative room to wiggle. Instead of people doing that, most of the posters basically said, "that's dumb, why would you want to?"
I didn't ask for comments on my motivation for doing it, I asked for people to help me figure out if it would work, and what things I hadn't thought about that might need addressing. If you like the Pathfinder skills and don't think they should be replaced, great, go find another thread and post there. Coming into this thread and replying to the original post with anything other than a "yes, and here are things you need to think about," or "no, it won't work, here's why," is not helping, nor is it addressing the intent of the original post.
So...! For any future posters, please do me the huge favor of helping me figure out if the switch is possible, and what things I need to look at for actual implementation of the switch. Commenting on anything else really isn't helping.
Will it work?
Yes, just do it.
You'll have to throw out all the set Pathfinder DCs because they won't work so well with the lower modifiers, but you're planning to do that anyway, so it's fine. The only thing I can think of that might present a problem are combat uses of skills, like Feint, Demoralize, or Tumbling to evade AoOs. Things that aren't static DCs or opposed skill checks will have to be rebalanced to account for the lower modifiers.
I criticize the way I do because if the approach will not satisfy your design goals, then the approach is flawed and therefore not recommended.
From what I can tell from your posts, you want to swap PF's skill system with 5E because you believe it will make games more narrative and roleplay-driven. However, when you elaborate what makes PF's system not suitable for that, you largely talk about the tone of the rules text and how GMs/players run the rules. Swapping the skill system won't really fix that, because those issues are independent of the actual game mechanics. If anything, using 5E's system might make things worse because PCs will have smaller skill bonuses that makes them more at the mercy of a random die roll.
Yes, you could certainly swap the systems with lots of tweaks or homebrew an alternate skill system that works more like 5E. I'm just pointing out that it will mostly likely not result in what you hope to accomplish.
With most Pathfinder players expecting common DC's for things because that is how we tend to play the game you will have to create a new set of tables. This matters for in world consistency. As an example I know that I can still jump at least 8 feet without running. The characters need similar knowledge.
Without going into a long speech and telling that the mechanics(PF vs 5E) won't really matter to much in my opinion I will tell you yes, that the change can be done, but it will still require some heavy lifting from your side to set it up, assuming your players are like most PF players. I know players are not a part of the mechanics, but disgruntled players mean the mechanics are not working.
@Quantum Steve: Excellent point, I will definitely need to look at things like Feint and find a suitable workaround for them, thank you for that advice.
@Cyrad: I do appreciate you trying to make sure my motivation for switching will actually be what is accomplished. I'm not worried about lower skill bonuses for the players, because all of the DCs will be lower as well, based off of the 5e table of typical DCs. In addition, since I'm the GM I can set the DCs as I see fit. Which is one of the major reasons I want the switch. It gives me the freedom to set a DC that is reasonable and fair for the situation, rather than turning to a table somewhere and saying, this is what the rules say the number is. I'm sure at this point some people will think, well if you just want the liberty to set the DCs as you see fit, go ahead and do that, you don't need to change rulesets to do that. The thing is, though, that if I'm just randomly adjusting DCs without any guidance whatsoever the skill system becomes entirely GM fiat, and would lose any semblance of actual game work-ability. Thus my idea of changing to a new, similar, but different system, entirely. Switching to a new complete skill system provides the guidance I need for DCs, and helps the players by giving them a different idea of how things will run. It very well could be that, deep down, this is my biggest driving motivation, and I'm okay with that. Also, I kind of disagree with you about the language of the rules not having any effect. I think giving the set of pages from the 5e rules to my players and reading through them with them will actually give them the mindset that they should not say, "I want to use this skill..." but instead say, "I try to hide in the bushes..." because that is how the language of the rules is written. It might not, but it certainly does have that potential. Also! And probably even more important than me being able to set the DCs, I HATE Pathfinder's Diplomacy rules. I think the DCs are ridiculously high for anyone that hasn't devoted all available resources to that skill, and the game I run is social interaction heavy. I've often thought of throwing them out, and switching skill systems altogether to a separate established rule set makes that easy.
@Wraithstrike: I understand what you're saying, but in my case that doesn't actually apply. My game is a home game for my middle-school aged sons and their friends. :) They understand the rules, but they don't spend hours pouring over them. They wouldn't know the DC of a diplomacy check, or a climb check unless I told them what it was. In fact they are very much used to rolling, telling me the number including all bonuses, and then waiting for me to narrate the results. What I'm trying to accomplish here is to make it easier for all of us by giving me the liberty to adjust the DCs (with an example table as guidance), and them the knowledge that just because they aren't trained in a skill doesn't mean they can't attempt something. I also realize, this deep into the conversation, that saying that ahead of time might have made some people's responses change, but what is happening at my table should never have to be brought up in a thread where I'm simply asking the community to help me figure out how to do something, should it?
ok, in that case you have more leeway so I think it can work with a lot less adjusting than I thought. I say go for it. If it doesn't work out keep adjusting til it does.
One thing about DCs, you really need to throw out the PF tables, seriously forget they exist. They vague, unhelpful table in the 5E PHB is also fairly, well, vague and unhelpful. Resist the temptation to ask yourself something sensible like: "How hard should this task be?" and instead ask: "Do I want my players to succeed at this task?".
It's not simply a matter of lower DCs. In fact, the difficulty table 5E uses is very similar to the one 3.5E used and off which Pathfinder is based. The fundamental DC 10= Easy, DC 15 = Medium, DC 20 = Hard, is the same in both 5E and PF.
An untrained commoner has the same 50% chance to succeed at a DC 10 basic task in PF as in 5E, and really that's what the baseline should be. The differences is 5E gives out much lower bonuses for skills, making a master at a skill not all that much better that someone completely untrained.
For example, in PF a skilled character might have a reasonable chance to accomplish a (DC 20) Hard task by level 4 or 5, in 5E a character would need to be at least level 13 to have a 50% chance to complete the same task. You could lower the DC, but then the untrained commoner has almost the same chance of success.
Aside from Rogues, for whom being good at skills is literally a Class Feature, it seems to me PCs aren't intended to do extraordinary things with their skills, and that skills are meant to be pushed aside as less relevant than other things, not unlike the "non-weapon proficienceis" of old.
Anyway, the point is if you want your players to be able to accomplish the same types of things using this system, you need to have a very different mindset when it comes to setting DCs than the one suggested in the PHB. Just something you'd want to consider.
Edit:
Or, just change the proficiency bonus for skills to +1 per level. Then it's basically just picking skills to max out every level. The modifiers an DCs stay exactly the same and most everything should slide right in seamlessly. You could also give characters a number of trained skills equal to their base skill points per level, just to keep the same balance between classes in PF.
@Quantum Steve: Thanks again for excellent things to think about. I will definitely need to consider this as I move forward.