D&D 5E The skill system is one dimensional.

[jmartkdr2]

The hair I'd split is that while I don't want ll skill checks to be complicated - I would like to have a subsystem of sorts to handle exploration challenges.

So if, mid-combat, I want to climb the goblin watchtower to get at the archers up there, that can and should be a simple roll vs a DC (failure meaning a lost action.) But if we all come across a wide chasm in the depths, too deep for any of us to see the bottom, and the remains of a bridge show us the rest of the tunnel across the way - that should not be a single athletics check. This is what skill challenges are for, presumably.

But those are two very different contexts.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Sorry everyone it's difficult to keep up with all the replies being posted here.

The hair I'd split is that while I don't want ll skill checks to be complicated - I would like to have a subsystem of sorts to handle exploration challenges.

So if, mid-combat, I want to climb the goblin watchtower to get at the archers up there, that can and should be a simple roll vs a DC (failure meaning a lost action.) But if we all come across a wide chasm in the depths, too deep for any of us to see the bottom, and the remains of a bridge show us the rest of the tunnel across the way - that should not be a single athletics check. This is what skill challenges are for, presumably.

But those are two very different contexts.

My whole idea is that we explicitly should not have such a system. I believe that all that does is making things more complicated while at the same time not making the skill system itself more powerful.

I would like to see a skill-check that you can perform whenever you want something to be decided randomly, and on top of that fall back roll you have a more robust system that expands on what you can do and how it works.

Example: Currently there is no meaning at all to instrument proficiencies but at very high levels tier 3 or 4 I think it's fair to say that an instrument proficiency could be used to charm people or to fascinate or pacify crowds.

 

[billd91]

No offense but this comes from three things:

• The DM not knowing the powers of their players because they haven't been a player or failed to read what their players could do.
• The DM does not completely understand the creatures and/or scenario; therefore, they start making crap up which results in things like fudging die rolls, ballooning hit points mid fight, making damage greater than what it actually is, and/or increasing the number of baddies on a whim. All because they failed to actually understand or thoroughly think about how the encounter would play out.
• The DM fails to look for advice elsewhere. Buy an adventure path for Christ's sake and read it. It has all types of encounters in there that are appropriate.

And I get inexperienced DMs making this mistake. But if they have read and done their homework, those mistakes will much less than their successes. And, at times, even experienced DMs flub it. That's fine too. We've probably all had some great big baddie we spent hours creating or crafting a story around die in one round. That's ok. It happens. But consistent error does not happen if the DM is willing to learn.

Gonna track back a little here.
Even when a DM is willing to learn, each encounter is largely going to be an untested draft when the players encounter it. Chalking up mistakes just to inexperienced DMs seems a bit uncharitable to experienced DMs. It's worthwhile to recognize that no matter how much prepping a DM does, the biggest variable in encounter design is always the players and they'll even vary a bit from game day to game day.
So, yeah, have a rough idea of what the PCs can do and understanding the monsters are helpful but players have the capacity to put the most insidious gremlin ever produced by the Kremlin to shame.

 

[Vael]

Personally, any augmentation to the Skill system should: first, not overwrite the existing proficiencies and skill system in place, second, not be long, ie. Pages upon pages of skill specialities written up like feats or spells and third, not be overly complicated to adjudicate.

So, I'm tempted to try an import something like FATE's stunt system as a way to define specializations within skills. What I especially like is how they're written up as a Mad Libs appproach and that they add a justification from the character, so they feel personal.

For example:
Because I am proficient in [skill] and [something about the character, backstory or class, etc], I can [use this skill in a specific fashion in certain circumstances].

So what are those specific fashions?

• Use an non traditional ability score, like using Strength in place of Charisma for Intimidation.
• Use one skill where another might be more applicable.
• Do something faster. So like Cunning action, but more limited. Maybe an Illusionist Wizard can use Arcana to identify illusion spells without having to use their reaction, if you use Xanathar's rules for spell identification.
• Auto succeed certain things. I'm thinking acrobats not needing to make a check to balance on a tightrope, for example.

Certain Circumstance is a safety valve to make sure the stunt isn't too spammable.

So, to have some written examples:

• Because I am proficient in Arcana and [am an Illusionist Wizard], I can [use Arcana to identify Illusion spells without using a reaction].
• Because I am proficient in Intimidation and [am an Orc Barbarian], I can [use Strength instead of Charisma when intimidating an NPC smaller than me].
• Because I am proficient in Acrobatics and [was raised in the Circus], I can [walk along narrow surfaces without having to make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check].
• Because I am proficient in Performance and [am a gifted Politician and Bard], I can [use Performance in place of Persuasion as long as I tell a story].

Finally, I'm tempted to say PCs get a number of stunts equal to their proficiency bonus, and can change an existing stunt everytime their bonus goes up. Maybe write up a feat that grants two bonus stunts.

Now, admittedly, some of these "Stunts" I'd just allow as a DM, but that doesn't mean I don't think having something like this gives some agency to players.

 

[Scott Christian]

Gonna track back a little here.
Even when a DM is willing to learn, each encounter is largely going to be an untested draft when the players encounter it. Chalking up mistakes just to inexperienced DMs seems a bit uncharitable to experienced DMs. It's worthwhile to recognize that no matter how much prepping a DM does, the biggest variable in encounter design is always the players and they'll even vary a bit from game day to game day.
So, yeah, have a rough idea of what the PCs can do and understanding the monsters are helpful but players have the capacity to put the most insidious gremlin ever produced by the Kremlin to shame.

Oh, no doubt. I agree. Players are indeed the biggest variable.

But... A prepared DM and one that uses the experience of others is far less likely to encounter those gremlins. A gremlin to an unprepared DM could simply be casting magic missile and the DM not realizing it "auto-hits." To a prepared DM it takes a lot more to throw them off.

 

[DaedalusX51]

Then your online community must be different than the one I see. Or, worse yet, people who had real and concrete concerns with how 4e was built and played are now just silent because they are tired of trying to demonstrate their arguments against people who refuse to listen. I mean, we see it in play right now in another thread about what to bring from Baldur's Gate to OneD&D. It's like people forgot that 4e did not appeal to the masses. In fact, it even failed to appeal to many long time D&D players; whereas 5e, has appealed to both.

My point is, an online vocalization, positive or negative, is not an indicator that the community switched. And that includes the online community. Because in the end, it might just be opponents know their evidence will be dismissed, and therefore, remain quiet.

I would agree with this as I feel it is representative of my experience. I don’t mention my distaste for 4e even though I have extensive experience with it. I played it when it first came out. I bought all the books even the essentials line (this is where I began to like the design more, but then it was scrapped to work on 5e). The DM for my group was new to 4e and made me absolutely hate it. He ran skill challenges without any narrative explanation. It was all just rolling dice first and narrative second. Anything that wasn’t written down on your character sheet was impossible to do. And even then if your power wasn’t designed specifically to do that thing then it didn’t work. You couldn’t use your powers to affect the world, only creatures and only in combat. I honestly gave up playing D&D until 5e came out and some other friends decided they would give it a try.

Now if I would go back and run 4e (with some tweaks) but with a 5e mindset then my players and myself might love it, but the way my DM ran it at the time was not for me. Also his DMing style was not even controversial in the community but common at the time. At least from my experience.

So when I hear people sing the praises for skill challenges I’m kinda left confused.

 

[Scott Christian]

I would agree with this as I feel it is representative of my experience. I don’t mention my distaste for 4e even though I have extensive experience with it. I played it when it first came out. I bought all the books even the essentials line (this is where I began to like the design more, but then it was scrapped to work on 5e). The DM for my group was new to 4e and made me absolutely hate it. He ran skill challenges without any narrative explanation. It was all just rolling dice first and narrative second. Anything that wasn’t written down on your character sheet was impossible to do. And even then if your power wasn’t designed specifically to do that thing then it didn’t work. You couldn’t use your powers to affect the world, only creatures and only in combat. I honestly gave up playing D&D until 5e came out and some other friends decided they would give it a try.

Now if I would go back and run 4e (with some tweaks) but with a 5e mindset then my players and myself might love it, but the way my DM ran it at the time was not for me. Also his DMing style was not even controversial in the community but common at the time. At least from my experience.

So when I hear people sing the praises for skill challenges I’m kinda left confused.

This was my experience too. Although I did not develop a distaste for it. I played on several tables where they were phenomenal roleplayers, so they infused the game with it. That said, it was very clear to me that the specificity of powers limited the free-flowing, and often entertaining, creativity of both player and DM. It was exactly like your bolded statement above. This is the reason I have been pushing back against this idea of making skills more specific. They need to be general to allow the game to play as is. Concerns and difficulties it may cause have not been addressed, which makes the idea seem even worse than it actually is.

That said, I have encouraged others to create such a system. To start small. Try it for three skills. Use it in a couple of sessions and then report back. I'd be curious to see how it plays out.

But I am with you 100%. I am confused.

 

[Shardstone]

Sorry everyone it's difficult to keep up with all the replies being posted here.


My whole idea is that we explicitly should not have such a system. I believe that all that does is making things more complicated while at the same time not making the skill system itself more powerful.

I would like to see a skill-check that you can perform whenever you want something to be decided randomly, and on top of that fall back roll you have a more robust system that expands on what you can do and how it works.

Example: Currently there is no meaning at all to instrument proficiencies but at very high levels tier 3 or 4 I think it's fair to say that an instrument proficiency could be used to charm people or to fascinate or pacify crowds.

I love your vision. I think to build it in its best form, you would need to cut out a sizeable chunk of spells, like jump or expeditious retreat, and also replace certain class features with it, like a monks unarmored movement.

 

[nevin]

In what way are the current spell lists a nightmare? The only real problems I see are the lack of limits and uncertainty on the part of casters, not in what spells they can cast.

takes some players an evening to decide which ones to use at high levels.. too many spells do the same thing. It's 30 years of bloat that leads the oft quoted wizard paralysis syndrome. Way way way too many spells and way way way too many sub par choices or only situational choices.

 

[Micah Sweet]

takes some players an evening to decide which ones to use at high levels.. too many spells do the same thing. It's 30 years of bloat that leads the oft quoted wizard paralysis syndrome. Way way way too many spells and way way way too many sub par choices or only situational choices.

Hey, thousands of years of in-universe history across many settings leads to a lot of magical research, which leads to a lot of spells. The price you pay for a world with verisimilitude.