MockingBird
Hero
Xanathars Guide to Everything has a nice section on expanding skills with tools. Probably worth a look for you.
Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
ad_hoc
(they/them)
This may be due to framing.
In 5e characters don't 'use skills' they perform actions and the DM may assign a skill to add proficiency to an uncertain outcome.
So skills aren't a construction on what can be performed. This is different than tools which are used.
If you want to change skills you may need to change the ability Check system itself. Rolls are not nearly as common in 5e as they were in 3e for example.
In 5e characters don't 'use skills' they perform actions and the DM may assign a skill to add proficiency to an uncertain outcome.
So skills aren't a construction on what can be performed. This is different than tools which are used.
If you want to change skills you may need to change the ability Check system itself. Rolls are not nearly as common in 5e as they were in 3e for example.
TaranTheWanderer
Legend
I don’t get what you are saying. Are you saying that my 3.5 games didn’t work out as I hoped because I played them in the same role playing style that you are advocating for 5e and that that rp style was ‘wrong’ for 3.5?
5e didn’t exist yet, so if I was playing it the way 5e is supposed to be played, I didn’t realize it. I actually enjoyed my 3.5 games.
Or are you suggesting that I should stop complaining about 5e because I seem to be playing it right? I do complain a lot, so there’s that.
Last edited:
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I can't say anything about your games because I don't know you or your game. But commonly people run or play, say, a newer version of D&D as if it is some older version of D&D and run into problems or dissatisfaction that is blamed on the newer version of the game. I did that myself when I stopped running D&D 3.5e and started running D&D 4e. It's worth thinking about that when considering house rules in my view: "Am I playing this game in the manner the current rules intend or I am bringing older approaches and methods into it that don't jive as well with this rules set?"
TaranTheWanderer
Legend
Ah, I see. I’m just saying that what you are describing feels more like a style of play rather than a codified ruleset.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I paraphrased what the D&D 5e rules actually say though.
Jacob Lewis
Ye Olde GM
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
13th Age is a d20 that came out a bit before 5e from lead designers of 3ed and 4e. It's skill system is very simple and very comprehensive.
Everyone gets 8 background points to split between a few backgrounds, none above +5. Backgrounds are encouraged to be descriptive. You aren't "Sailor +4", you're "First Mate on the pirate schooner Roll-yer-bones +4" or "Enlisted crew on HDM (His Draconic Magesty's) _Wavehammer_ +4". Or "Quartermaster on a succession of cargoships for the Concord Trading Company +4".
Then, it's all a does this fit? There's a great story I heard secondhand about a party trying to console a widow who's son had been killed. One of the characters was a "Captain from the Iron Wall" (sees giant monster attacks often) or something like that who said "Do you know how many letters I had to write to grieving families that their sons and daughters wouldn't be coming home? I know the words and the motions to settle the widow down." So the background was allowed.
YES, at a table where players are trying to game the system and a DM who won't talk to players if things are out-of-hand it cane lead to players trying to have their best background apply to everything. If you have players where a little honest communication wouldn't clear that up, then go for something more formalized.
But otherwise it's remarkable comprehensive while being ridiculously simple. With the added bonus of constantly fleshing out characters AND providing the DM hooks into your backstory. Just made of win.
Everyone gets 8 background points to split between a few backgrounds, none above +5. Backgrounds are encouraged to be descriptive. You aren't "Sailor +4", you're "First Mate on the pirate schooner Roll-yer-bones +4" or "Enlisted crew on HDM (His Draconic Magesty's) _Wavehammer_ +4". Or "Quartermaster on a succession of cargoships for the Concord Trading Company +4".
Then, it's all a does this fit? There's a great story I heard secondhand about a party trying to console a widow who's son had been killed. One of the characters was a "Captain from the Iron Wall" (sees giant monster attacks often) or something like that who said "Do you know how many letters I had to write to grieving families that their sons and daughters wouldn't be coming home? I know the words and the motions to settle the widow down." So the background was allowed.
YES, at a table where players are trying to game the system and a DM who won't talk to players if things are out-of-hand it cane lead to players trying to have their best background apply to everything. If you have players where a little honest communication wouldn't clear that up, then go for something more formalized.
But otherwise it's remarkable comprehensive while being ridiculously simple. With the added bonus of constantly fleshing out characters AND providing the DM hooks into your backstory. Just made of win.
Bawylie
A very OK person
Yep. It’s underdeveloped and over-relief-on.
I find it best to just eliminate it altogether and rely on ability checks with some discussion of whether or not a proficiency bonus should apply considering a character’s race, class, or background.
If I were re-doing skills altogether, I might categorize them into broad groups like “tools,” “education,” and “training.” Then I’d see to it that each race, class, and background got to pick selections from those categories. Races might get to pick from education and training. Backgrounds might get to pick from tools and education. And class would get to pick from all 3 categories.
I can’t decide whether weapon/armor use falls under tools or training. There are arguments for both.
After that it’s a matter of aggregating lists and recommending defaults.
I find it best to just eliminate it altogether and rely on ability checks with some discussion of whether or not a proficiency bonus should apply considering a character’s race, class, or background.
If I were re-doing skills altogether, I might categorize them into broad groups like “tools,” “education,” and “training.” Then I’d see to it that each race, class, and background got to pick selections from those categories. Races might get to pick from education and training. Backgrounds might get to pick from tools and education. And class would get to pick from all 3 categories.
I can’t decide whether weapon/armor use falls under tools or training. There are arguments for both.
After that it’s a matter of aggregating lists and recommending defaults.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
Both 3E and 5E use the same basic process of play (DM describes, player declares, DM sets DC, roll if necessary). The only difference is a minor change in how those rules are presented, since 3E wanted to do the math of establishing the DC for you, and 5E just has the DM figure out an appropriate DC.
Some people read way too much into that difference of presentation, but it's safe to ignore their opinions.
Similar Threads
