Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Thoughts on 5e skills.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7146781" data-attributes="member: 6795602"><p>The same effect could easily be accomplished by making breaking out of a grapple dependent on athletics and the higher of strength or dex. It's not very fair to say a suggested change wouldn't work in the rules as is when it both A) has an easy solution or B) is assumed that rules involving the specified skills would need changed or modified in some way by changing or removing the skills.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yep. I've seen it used a lot to. It still is a pointless skill because it almost never impacts an adventure in any meaningful way. It's just a pointless skill that some people find flavorful. So why have it as a separate skill instead of just a charisma check or a persuasion check?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why leave them in? Does anyone at your table take or use them? Why bother with something that isn't taken or used? Why have a dedicated skill to something that is so little a part of the game? Consider that every skill you add in is one more thing that your character will be terrible at for not taking. For example if 5e had 100 skills and you only chose 5 then you would be terrible at a ton of things. If 5e only had 6 skills and you chose 5 then you will be great at almost everything. There's a balance to be had and adding in skills that rarely come up or could easily be rolled into another skill with little harm and skills that are overly specific in the tasks they help with just doesn't get you to that sweet spot with skills.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>I disagree. You need explicit rules to detail those options as valid choices for DM's otherwise there is nothing in the game to suggest that proficiency is a toggle for whether you auto succeed or get a check or not and implementing such a system would be a very major house rule. Yes houserules are fine (I shouldn't have to even say that but I know I will). But it's much better when the options are spelled out in actual rules. Even if those options were spelled out as valid options a DM would still be free to abjudicate in every situation that proficiency and non proficiency behaved the same way and it would be RAW for him to do it. So making that change still doesn't impact your game if you don't like it. In any case, this way and your way both still involve DM abjudication. I'm not sure where the complaint is coming from that my suggestion doesn't allow for DM abjucation?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Of course. However, there is no precedent in the rules that proficiency should have anything to do with whether a roll is called for or not. If that was then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As the rules stand now it would feel very arbitrary to players if a DM made no mention of it but started ruling based on my suggestion. Players wouldn't understand the system and would get confused by what is happening. It would make for a bad experience IMO. Detailing some background on how skill checks will be handled is important and having a page number in the book that mentions doing it that way is very helpful.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well I think most agree there. I also don't think most DM's realize when they are making players roll too much. But that's basically an entirely different discussion. I'm talking more about about what skills should be included in the skill system and what should not be and if proficiency should give any additional game benefits other than just a small increase in chance of success of specific skills. I personally think proficiency should mean more than just a slightly increased chance of success. That's one reason I proposed being able to handle non-proficienct skills differently than proficient ones which isn't something the rules really touch on. Yes the DM can implement any system he wants by houserule. But saying every suggestion should be a houserule instead of in the rules is just lame.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7146781, member: 6795602"] The same effect could easily be accomplished by making breaking out of a grapple dependent on athletics and the higher of strength or dex. It's not very fair to say a suggested change wouldn't work in the rules as is when it both A) has an easy solution or B) is assumed that rules involving the specified skills would need changed or modified in some way by changing or removing the skills. Yep. I've seen it used a lot to. It still is a pointless skill because it almost never impacts an adventure in any meaningful way. It's just a pointless skill that some people find flavorful. So why have it as a separate skill instead of just a charisma check or a persuasion check? Why leave them in? Does anyone at your table take or use them? Why bother with something that isn't taken or used? Why have a dedicated skill to something that is so little a part of the game? Consider that every skill you add in is one more thing that your character will be terrible at for not taking. For example if 5e had 100 skills and you only chose 5 then you would be terrible at a ton of things. If 5e only had 6 skills and you chose 5 then you will be great at almost everything. There's a balance to be had and adding in skills that rarely come up or could easily be rolled into another skill with little harm and skills that are overly specific in the tasks they help with just doesn't get you to that sweet spot with skills. I disagree. You need explicit rules to detail those options as valid choices for DM's otherwise there is nothing in the game to suggest that proficiency is a toggle for whether you auto succeed or get a check or not and implementing such a system would be a very major house rule. Yes houserules are fine (I shouldn't have to even say that but I know I will). But it's much better when the options are spelled out in actual rules. Even if those options were spelled out as valid options a DM would still be free to abjudicate in every situation that proficiency and non proficiency behaved the same way and it would be RAW for him to do it. So making that change still doesn't impact your game if you don't like it. In any case, this way and your way both still involve DM abjudication. I'm not sure where the complaint is coming from that my suggestion doesn't allow for DM abjucation? Of course. However, there is no precedent in the rules that proficiency should have anything to do with whether a roll is called for or not. If that was then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As the rules stand now it would feel very arbitrary to players if a DM made no mention of it but started ruling based on my suggestion. Players wouldn't understand the system and would get confused by what is happening. It would make for a bad experience IMO. Detailing some background on how skill checks will be handled is important and having a page number in the book that mentions doing it that way is very helpful. Well I think most agree there. I also don't think most DM's realize when they are making players roll too much. But that's basically an entirely different discussion. I'm talking more about about what skills should be included in the skill system and what should not be and if proficiency should give any additional game benefits other than just a small increase in chance of success of specific skills. I personally think proficiency should mean more than just a slightly increased chance of success. That's one reason I proposed being able to handle non-proficienct skills differently than proficient ones which isn't something the rules really touch on. Yes the DM can implement any system he wants by houserule. But saying every suggestion should be a houserule instead of in the rules is just lame. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Thoughts on 5e skills.
Top