D&D 5E Some thoughts on skills.

[DND_Reborn]

In defense of 5e, rather than giving us a bunch of DC charts to refer to, they keep it simple by giving guidance on how to set a DC for any particular task:

Difficulty	DC
Very Easy	5
Easy	10
Moderate	15
Hard	20
Very Hard	25
Nearly Impossible	30

The problem with this is if someone looks at the odds it doesn't make sense subjectively IMO.

Why does a "Very Easy" task have a 20% of not succeeding? It is Very Easy, after all.
Why is something "Very Hard" not even possible by someone without experience and/or training?

The DC's should all be 5 lower as I see it:

Very Easy - 0
Easy - 5
Moderate - 10
Hard - 15
Very Hard - 20
Nearly Impossible - 25

 

[Shiroiken]

Bounded accuracy needs to apply to both sides. It falls apart & farcically ceases to be bounded in any way with bounded DCs & bounded monsters across from unbounded PCs

Expertise is the only thing that breaks BA though, and even then it's not usually a problem until level 11+ (where most people complain about other issues). A level 10 Expert has a +13 modifier, which allows an untrained character with no modifier to still win occasionally. Even against a DC: 15, which would be considered pretty reasonable for a level 10 character, the Expert still fails 5% of the time. The problem is you expect things to continuously get harder as you level, when in reality it should be getting easier.

 

[Baron Opal II]

At least according to the poll I put up recently, Skills are the single most agreed upon mechanic for D&D. Thinking about the way 5E uses skills, I would like to propose some ideas for how I think they could be better utilized in the game.
1) Skills need to be defined as a specific thing, not treated as an afterthought of an ability check.
2) Skills need to be disconnected from ability scores. there is already a rule that makes this possible, but it needs to be explicit.

I agree, although I would say perhaps either/or, take the higher value, perhaps. I endorse the concept that ability score are "talent" where skills are, well, "skill" and tied to level. With Bounded Accuracy I think they need to be added together regardless.

3) there should be a penalty (disadvantage? -2?) for using any skill untrained.

Given BA, I like this, but I think it would be better to gate a minimum competence with proficiency. Right now we have three levels of skill regardless of the numerical value; Untrained, Proficient, Expert. I think we can use that to clarify what actually needs skill checks versus uncanny or preternatural levels of skill.

4) Skills need to inherently outweigh ability scores on the d20 roll.

Yes, but infeasible under BA.

5) the skill list needs to be expanded and more skill points need to be provided to all characters.
6) Backgrounds should determine how many base skill points you get, modified by class.

Good grief, no. If I want a skill based game I'll play RuneQuest (which I enjoy). D&D has classes, which should delineate what they are capable of doing. Each class should have the same number of skills, with a nod towards what they might have learned in an apprenticeship that they abandoned for adventuring (Background). If they want more skill proficiencies, that's what feats are for.

7) Tool proficiencies need to go away and having or not having the right tools should modify skill checks.

Yes, sort of. I think those should be skills, and if there is a tool kit tied to a skill then there is a penalty applied. (Might be the same thing you said.)

In addition, this is a more general rule, but I think advantage and disadvantage should stack from different sources and cancel each other out on a one for one basis...

Yes, to the point of rolling three dice at a time. If you are rolling four dice then you pretty much win, from a Numberphile video I watched once (I think, might be wrong as to the source).

Edit: I would prefer, personally, 20 or less skills. Also, there is also reliable. I don't think that can be applied to a non-proficient skill, but I'm uncertain.

 

[Pedantic]

The problem is you expect things to continuously get harder as you level, when in reality it should be getting easier.

This might be the real issue. Truly difficult tasks are by necessity rarer than easier ones, so the amount of times that a skill check has a significant chance of failure should generally be decreasing as characters go up in level, something that probably feels unintuitive to many DMs.

 

[tetrasodium]

Expertise is the only thing that breaks BA though, and even then it's not usually a problem until level 11+ (where most people complain about other issues). A level 10 Expert has a +13 modifier, which allows an untrained character with no modifier to still win occasionally. Even against a DC: 15, which would be considered pretty reasonable for a level 10 character, the Expert still fails 5% of the time. The problem is you expect things to continuously get harder as you level, when in reality it should be getting easier.

No not quite...
"I cast guidance"

"and I help"
There's a difference between easier & guaranteed

 

[ph0rk]

While we are considering skills, we ought to consider skills per attribute. This is weirdly balanced now, and while once upon a time it might have made sense to stack skills on charisma, it is a main stat for a lot of classes now and opens up a skills game for them it does not for other classes.

Disconnecting skills from ability scores more often will help, but not enough given the proliferation of skulduggery (mostly dex), social/physical perception (mostly wis), and smooth talking skills (mostly cha). Int and Str skills seem inherently less useful (some of this is the classic conflating of athletics and acrobatics, but also the problem of most things athletics can solve becoming less relevant at higher tiers of play).

 

[Pedantic]

While we are considering skills, we ought to consider skills per attribute. This is weirdly balanced now, and while once upon a time it might have made sense to stack skills on charisma, it is a main stat for a lot of classes now and opens up a skills game for them it does not for other classes.

Scott Gearin, originally homebrewing for Fantasy Craft/Spycraft and later working on his Alabaster system did a reworking of the attribute system with the specific goal of assigning the same number of mechanical outputs to each one, including an equal number of skills. I think that should be the basic design for attributes from jump, making sure each one has a roughly equivalent number of knock-on effects in the system.

 

[Clint_L]

At least according to the poll I put up recently, Skills are the single most agreed upon mechanic for D&D. Thinking about the way 5E uses skills, I would like to propose some ideas for how I think they could be better utilized in the game.
1) Skills need to be defined as a specific thing, not treated as an afterthought of an ability check.
2) Skills need to be disconnected from ability scores. there is already a rule that makes this possible, but it needs to be explicit.
3) there should be a penalty (disadvantage? -2?) for using any skill untrained.
4) Skills need to inherently outweigh ability scores on the d20 roll.
5) the skill list needs to be expanded and more skill points need to be provided to all characters.
6) Backgrounds should determine how many base skill points you get, modified by class.
7) Tool proficiencies need to go away and having or not having the right tools should modify skill checks.

In addition, this is a more general rule, but I think advantage and disadvantage should stack from different sources and cancel each other out on a one for one basis, AND if more than 1 "level" of advantage or disadvantage remains, you roll multiple additional dice and take the bester/worst of all of them.

EDIT: For clarity, I am "liking" posts because I am glad people are engaged in the topic, not necessarily becaaue I agree with you lot.

1-2) These seem to be related ideas. Agreed, particularly about divorcing skills from abilities. No more of clerics being the automatic lords of perception!
3) I don't see the need for this. I would like to see greater emphasis given to reminding DMs that some skill checks are not even possible without significant training.
4) Doesn't (2) take care of this? I might not understand what you mean.
5) Maybe? I don't love adding more detail but can see that dividing a few of the current OP skills might aid balance.
6) I think everyone should get the same base number of skills, modified by class. I agree skills should be tied to background.
7) Not sure? In practice, won't this mean just having more skills that include tool proficiencies, which isn't really much different from having the tool proficiencies?

Edit: I would also add
8) Skills should never come from species.

 

[Reynard]

4) Doesn't (2) take care of this? I might not understand what you mean.

I mean the numbers. The modifier to the roll from skills should outweigh the ability score if you are trained/proficient.

 

[ph0rk]

I mean the numbers. The modifier to the roll from skills should outweigh the ability score if you are trained/proficient.

RIght, in tier 1 a high ability score can and does outweigh training, and an untrained performer (who is charismatic) will beat a non charisma primary class that spent one if its few proficienices on performance most of the time. Training seems to only really counterbalance raw ability by level 9 or 13; although it also stacks with ability.

Assuming DC creep is not a thing (and I have a hard time assuming that without major re-writes), it still means that using a proficiency on a skill you don't have the ability for means you will likely always be only mediocre at that skill. It reminds me of cross-class skills from 3e. Expertise can counter this, but not every class gets access to it. You could ignore some iconic skills, like performance, on a bard knowing you'll have a high CHA, (and get Jack of all Trades), but probably still make simple checks with it easily.

I would suggest, then, that in addition to an untrained -2 to skill checks (and punt on what to do about Jack of all Trades), I'd allow a maximum of +2 to skills from abilities: +1 at 14-17 and +2 at 18+. More tedious recordkeeping, perhaps, but it takes the edge off of the raw ability dominance in early tiers.