One thing the game really need is an extended skill challenge type procedure from WoTC. Most if the issues with exploration, gather information and so on would be addressed by a universal procedure of extended skill challenge.
D&D (2024) They need to bring back Gather Information in One DnD.
I agree, but I don't think Gather Info needs to use it, for the reasons I articulated in my post you quoted.
I would agree that this particular usecase does not need a full extended ability check mechanics but a general procedure for open questions of that nature would be a very useful addition to the game. As it would inform DMs of the general approach to questions like this. It solves so many of the non-combat issues with D&D 5th edition. That is not to say some of the usecases that such a system could cover could not also benefit from a more elaborate subsytem. For instance travel could be covered by such a system but in a travel focused campaign one might want to use Cubicle 7's Uncharted Journeys.
It would be a real boon to add such a thing to the new DMG.
Azzy
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
The people who want something like Shadowdark have Shadowdark.
Incenjucar
Legend
I feel it would be handy if the game had two or three different levels of abstraction available for exploration AND combat. Super-important stuff can use the highly detailed process, while simple stuff can use the simple process, and that way players and DMs can choose where to spend their time.
That's why modular subsystems are generally better than highly integrated mechanics. It is easier to introduce or ignore things if doing so doesn't alter the value of some fundamental feature (like, say, requiring feat chains for an activity).
Yaarel
He Mage
Some checks can be more complex when combining the single Ability check with both a Skill proficiency and a Tool proficiency.
There might be more like this.
For example, a "Relationship" might count as a kind of proficiency bonus when the check relates to the wellbeing of a specific loved one.
Possibly, an Alignment or other "Ideal" is a proficiency that adds when the check for an action that is conspicuously and difficultly representative of ones Ideal.
Possibly, a Flaw can do something weird and fun, such as granting Inspiration when the check fails.
Any roll might include two choices of proficiencies.
There needs to be more design thought about how such always-on advantage to a check plays out, but in principle it stays within the balance of the 5e gaming engine.
Last edited:
Could 5E have a Gather Information skill rather than using one of the other skills, like Investigation? Sure. Does it need it? Depends on who you ask.
Could 5E have a Thievery skill rather than use Thieves' Tools in its place? Sure. Does it need it? Depends on who you ask.
Could 5E have a Nobility skill rather than assume the knowledge about the upper class would fall under History or Religion or Arcana? Sure. Does it need it? Depends on who you ask.
Could 5E have a Commerce skill for appraising and haggling and the like rather than using History or Persuasion as DMs now kind of have to do? Sure. Does it need it? Depends on who you ask.
The fact of the matter is... the game could support hundreds of different skills. Every single little thing a character could do could be its own skill. Knowledge of monster traits could be their own skills rather than just done as part of skills like Religion, Nature, Arcana and the like that it currently does. Riding horses could go back to being its own skill rather than treated as a Tool or as part of Animal Handling. Pickpocketing could be split off from Sleight of Hand to be its own skill again. There's no end to the types of things that could be skills in D&D.
But at the end of the day... the question just becomes how much is gained by doing that for most people? Yes, for some players it would be a godsend to have 50 different skills and each one being able to be boosted one skill point at a time, rather than just by proficiency bonus. But for others that would be a massive waste of time or energy. So who's right? Who gets their way? Eventually each person will have to decide whether or not they think their desires will be the ones that WotC goes with... and if it turns out that they aren't... then they need to decide whether or not changing the rules for their own personal table will be the best way to get what they want.
I know I've changed the skill list for almost every single 5E campaign I have run-- adding, subtracting, and merging all manner of skills so as to be most appropriate for the style of the campaign-- and I will continue to do so even after 5E24 gets released.
Could 5E have a Thievery skill rather than use Thieves' Tools in its place? Sure. Does it need it? Depends on who you ask.
Could 5E have a Nobility skill rather than assume the knowledge about the upper class would fall under History or Religion or Arcana? Sure. Does it need it? Depends on who you ask.
Could 5E have a Commerce skill for appraising and haggling and the like rather than using History or Persuasion as DMs now kind of have to do? Sure. Does it need it? Depends on who you ask.
The fact of the matter is... the game could support hundreds of different skills. Every single little thing a character could do could be its own skill. Knowledge of monster traits could be their own skills rather than just done as part of skills like Religion, Nature, Arcana and the like that it currently does. Riding horses could go back to being its own skill rather than treated as a Tool or as part of Animal Handling. Pickpocketing could be split off from Sleight of Hand to be its own skill again. There's no end to the types of things that could be skills in D&D.
But at the end of the day... the question just becomes how much is gained by doing that for most people? Yes, for some players it would be a godsend to have 50 different skills and each one being able to be boosted one skill point at a time, rather than just by proficiency bonus. But for others that would be a massive waste of time or energy. So who's right? Who gets their way? Eventually each person will have to decide whether or not they think their desires will be the ones that WotC goes with... and if it turns out that they aren't... then they need to decide whether or not changing the rules for their own personal table will be the best way to get what they want.
I know I've changed the skill list for almost every single 5E campaign I have run-- adding, subtracting, and merging all manner of skills so as to be most appropriate for the style of the campaign-- and I will continue to do so even after 5E24 gets released.
I split the quote of your post with a line because there's a distinct shift where a list of both sides dithering is listed before assumptions are made while continuing on and those assumptions create serious problems for the continuation
There is a critical factor in all of the could 5e have X elements you listed. That factor is that 5e took it a step further by doing things to ensure that it would be difficult for a GM to add them. Heck the system was designed in such a way that it presented barriers for the GM if they simply tried to use the skill systemof ability checks as described & presented.
We aren't talking about just could they have done x & would there be enough gain to do that, we are talking about could they have done X had they not actively taken steps to make sure it was a bumpy process should the GM try to homebrew it as they are regularly told to.
I do not see any such barriers that make it difficult for a DM to add or subtract skills in the game. Might just be DMing style, but I have had different skill lists as well as used the Variant Ability Score variant rule for skills for every single campaign of 5E that I have run and have had no issues.
So I do not believe there is some systemic issue with the game as presented, but rather that individual DMs have styles which run counter to the skill system as presently constituted. Now of course that doesn't HELP them in any way, shape or form... the break between the 5E system and their DM styles will probably never reach an accord the player ultimately is happy with... but the game itself is not broken across the board. And we know this because some of us can and have been using the system without a problem-- either as-is or by making our own desired changes.
Similar Threads
