D&D 5E Changing the Skill Check Paradigm

Currently my biggest annoyance with 5e is the skills. In fact, it's not even the skills so much as it is how they're still tied to abilities. Moreover, abilities that I don't feel make any sense in relation to how the skills predominantly work. In the case of Survival, for instance, I feel it has been shoehorned onto Wisdom solely to suit the ranger. And clerics being perceptive has bugged me ever since the Perception skill was introduced. And Animal Handling for riding using Wisdom just feels wrong in so many ways.

Every time I bring this subject up as a separate gripe about a particular skill, however, one of the common factors in retorts is, "You can just use a different ability for different situations." This, I already know. The problem stems from the assumption that a skill will always use the default ability score. Moreover, this assumption is intrinsically supported by the character sheet and the ability descriptions in the PHB. Due to these factors, breaking away from that paradigm is problematic in anything but a home game where I am the DM and even then, players gripe that their expectations are not met.

5e, however, does offer a possible "out" that could one day result in a turn-around of this paradigm. The default assumption for 5e isn't making a skill check, but rather an ability check and adding proficiency to it if you have a skill that relates to the task. This subtle alteration to the way in which skills work has, so far and in my experience, been overshadowed by player and DM assumptions as to how the system works, based on knowledge of previous system mechanics.

So I'm hoping that I can encourage players and DM's to divorce skills from default abilities. To do so I encourage players and DM's to make character sheets with only those skills with which the character has proficiency being listed and not associated in any way with ability scores. DM's asking players to make Ability Checks rather than skill checks and adding in that a player with proficiency in a certain skill can add it to the check. For instance, if a DM feels that Constitution makes more sense for a Perception (after all, eyes, ears, taste, touch & smell are all related to the healthy functioning of the body and nervous system) check, ask the players to make a Constitution Check and tell them to add their proficiency bonus if they're proficient in Perception. Or if they need to control a horse, a Dexterity Check and add their proficiency bonus if they're proficient in Animal Handling, etc.

Now, you might not agree with my above examples but that's actually something that I feel speaks in favour of this method. Your group does it their way instead of falling back on the default assumptions. Maybe Intelligence makes more sense to you for Perception checks. Maybe Strength makes more sense for Intimidate checks. Whatever the DM determines is appropriate in a particular situation and what players agree to is what it should be, not what everyone assumes it is because the character sheet has it written down and automatically calculated for them. In this way, this method also makes the skill system far more flexible and interesting.

To me, making an Ability Check with an ability that is appropriate to the situation, and adding proficiency with a skill that is appropriate to the situation, makes far more sense than the default assumptions that tie certain abilities to certain skills. It's also a very simple change to make but one that I feel will have a profound effect, for the positive, on people's games and experiences with the 5e system. But it is also a change that will require a certain amount of effort on a majority of people's parts in order for it to become the new paradigm. Breaking away from established methodologies is difficult at first but I think is worth the effort in the long run.

Sounds like extra thinking for an already overburdened DM. Is +/- 0 to 3 difference most of the time worth this?

I've done this since Day One of 5th edition. Every other DM I've spoken to is also doing this. Example: Investigation is usually tied to Intelligence. But if the PC is specifically chatting up people in a bar, and buying rounds of drinks for them, it's Investigation (Charisma). And if there's a single clue lying around a scene that is easily overlooked, it might be Investigation (Wisdom)... although I'd also allow Perception (Wisdom) for that one. Nature (Wisdom) for finding a herb in the wild; Nature (Intelligence) for knowing what a specific herb is used for. Intimidate (Charisma) for veiled threats; Intimidate (Strength) for grabbing a scrawny rogue and holding him off the floor with one hand.

The thing that I'm puzzled about is why this would be "your biggest annoyance with 5e". It's a standard Rules Variant (page 59, Basic Rules). If a DM wants to explicitly link skills to stats, that's fine. If a DM wants to uncouple them, that's fine. That's like saying your biggest annoyance with 5e is that some DMs are playing it with a battle-mat and minis (also a Rules Variant; page 71, Basic Rules). I think you'll find that there are a large number of DMs who are happily playing it uncoupled, and an equally large amount who are playing it coupled. All flavors for all people; not worth getting stressed over.

Lancelot said:

The thing that I'm puzzled about is why this would be "your biggest annoyance with 5e".

Click to expand...

Because it annoys me that, in my opinion, skills don't align with their default ability scores most of the time. Not sure why that's a problem or why you're puzzled by that.

Lancelot said:

I think you'll find that there are a large number of DMs who are happily playing it uncoupled, and an equally large amount who are playing it coupled.

Click to expand...

And as I said, in my experience this is not the case. Most players and DM's I've played with are using the default abilities tied to skills. If I go to a con or play a pick-up game online, I'd like that the default assumption is Ability Checks with an appropriate ability for the situation rather than what the current paradigm is. So I'm merely trying to encourage people to try this method in the hope that it one day becomes the assumed and expected default method.

Lancelot said:

I've done this since Day One of 5th edition. Every other DM I've spoken to is also doing this.

Click to expand...

It's so common, in fact, that it is in the rules.

p175 PHB: Variant: Skills with Different Abilities

This seems to be to be more of an issue with some DMs and players bringing prior edition preconceptions forward into 5e rather than any issue with 5e itself. I see the same thing happening with Armor Class and Challenge Rating as well. It's going to take some time for folks to break out of their 'oh, I know how X works in DnD, I've been playing for years' mindset and get them to actually read the 5e rules and digest the changes.

I also use the Variant Rule that does not use a default ability score for each skill.

As far as a character sheet that takes this into account, I am quite partial to Jeff Carlsen's 5E Character Sheet that you can find in the Downloads section here on ENWorld. He includes just a "skill proficiency" section where you write in the skills you are proficient in, rather than the entire skill list with calculated bonuses attached. I'm quite a fan.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpgdownloads.php?do=download&downloadid=273

(I actually find it doubly fantastic in that he puts Background at the top of the list of Inspiration characteristics-- Bonds, Ideals, Flaws, Traits-- rather than up next to race and class. I use Backgrounds as ways for PCs to gain Inspiration just as much as the BIFTs.)

Having played a lot of games wherer 'Pick a skill, pick a stat, roll the dice' is the normal way of doing things, there are reasons why it's not always a good thing.

The general assumption in most games, and in 5e, is that you're going to skilled in some but not all things, and your stats will run the gamut from average to great. With static skill/stat pairs, this results in fairly predictable archetypes -- the halfling rogue will have a high Dex and be skilled in stealth, the half-orc barbarian will have a low CHA and be unskilled in Persuasion.

In 5e, Backgrounds do a good job of letting you change up those archetypes in an organic manner without forcing you to gimp your character. A player wanting a leader-y dwarf can still be decent in Persuasion by taking an appropriate background and putting a decent but not great score in CHA. He'll still be a great warror, and also pretty good a certain social tasks but still not so good at others.

So Duane the Half-Orc barbarian straight out of central casting walks into town and the guards demand he surrender his weapons. The player decides to try and talk them out of it; unlikely, no skill at Persuasion, low CHA, but the consequences of failure are low. Or he can try and intimidate them; better chance of success, low CHA but skilled at Intimidate, but the consequences of failure are higher. He could try and lie and tell them he has a dispensation from the sheriff, but that's unlikely too, with a low CHA and no skill at Deception. He could also surrender the great axe but try and keep the short sword hidden under his cloak; his high Dex could offset his lack of training in Sleight of Hand.

Duane the Half-Orc takes crap from no man, so he grabs the guard's shirt and growls 'Make me.' The GM says 'Ok, roll CHA+Intimidate', and things happen.

That was a decision, and decisions are interesting.

OTOH, Duane the Half-Orc Barbarian using the variant rule walks into town and the guards demand he surrrender his weapons. The same options are presented. Duane gets in the guard's face and says 'Make me.' The GM says ' Ok, roll CHA+Intimidate'. The player counters with 'I'm really strong, so I grab his shirt while I do it. That should be STR+Intimidate.'

So now the player has chosen both the skill to be used as well as the stat. This reduces or eliminates decisions. Players are going to try and game the system so they're always doing the optimal thing. Every skill check becomes a negotiation between the player and the GM, and that gets tedious and potentially confrontational when there's disagreements. It lets players boost their strengths while ignoring or minimizing their weaknesses, and that gets old fast. A roller-coaster of little successes and Little failures followed by big successes is more interesting than a constant string of little successes followed by a big success.

Ideally, what happens is the GM describes the situation, the player describes how they act, and the GM takes that into account. In the above example, Duane walks into town, the guard demands his weapons, Duane reacts by grabbing his shirt and saying 'Make me.' The GM tells the player to roll Str+Intimidate, but adjusts the consequences for failure from 'pissing off the guard' to 'the rest of the watch beats him senseless and throws him in jail'.

TL;DR -- Players making decisions is interesting, and allowing them to always cherry-pick to maximize their success is boring.

Thank Dog said:

5e, however, does offer a possible "out" that could one day result in a turn-around of this paradigm. The default assumption for 5e isn't making a skill check, but rather an ability check and adding proficiency to it if you have a skill that relates to the task. This subtle alteration to the way in which skills work has, so far and in my experience, been overshadowed by player and DM assumptions as to how the system works, based on knowledge of previous system mechanics.

Click to expand...

There is also a not-subtle variant rule exactly for using different ability scores with the same skill, depending on the situation.

I totally agree that fixed abilities are less interesting than flexible abilities, so I'm always going to use that variant rule.

The key is that the variant rule does not entitle players to choose the ability but rather makes the situation call for a different ability than usual.

Li Shenron said:

The key is that the variant rule does not entitle players to choose the ability but rather makes the situation call for a different ability than usual.

Click to expand...

Yup. The way the Variant method is meant to work is that DMs should be calling for Ability Checks, not Skill Checks. A situation comes up that requires a check, the DM determines which Ability Score applies to the situation, and then asks for a check against it. Only after that determination of Ability Score does the player or the DM decide whether or not a particular Skill a PC is proficient in could apply, and if it does, the player can add the proficiency Bonus on top of it.

That's why it's called a Bonus... because its something extra you can add onto the base. And that base is the Ability Score that the DM is asking you to check against.