Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system

The Crimson Binome · Apr 1, 2019

Saeviomagy said:
Has anyone brought up the fact that in the current edition, skill modifiers usually don't matter? A 1st level weakling with no athletics proficiency will get the same result on a hard climb as the level 20 max-strength barbarian 45% of the time. Would it matter if the proficiency involved is 'climbing' instead of 'athletics' when the numbers mean so little?

That's an idea. If you narrowed the focus of each skill, and increased the benefit of proficiency, then it could add depth to characters without trivializing skill checks (as might happen if you only increased the bonus, but didn't narrow their focus).

Personally, I would increase the proficiency bonus for skills by +4 across the board, and not narrow their focus at all, but also increase skill check DCs by +5. I don't particularly care about making the skill system any more complicated, though.

5ekyu · Apr 1, 2019

Saeviomagy said:
Has anyone brought up the fact that in the current edition, skill modifiers usually don't matter? A 1st level weakling with no athletics proficiency will get the same result on a hard climb as the level 20 max-strength barbarian 45% of the time. Would it matter if the proficiency involved is 'climbing' instead of 'athletics' when the numbers mean so little?

Of course in your example it's not true but your math seems way off.

Barb 20 has Indom Might so their minimum score is 20. They auto-succeed on Hard climb at DC 20. (Not surprising, level 20 is not usually supposed to be worrying about a tough climb challenge. Thsts morevtier-1 and maybe early tier-2 "challenge" fodder.)

Weakling (below avg str) cannot succeed, cannot get to a 20 with strength 9 or less.

So, for your cherry picked example the proficiency does not matter cuz the characters specific stats and chosen DC make it automatic. If the weakling did have proficiency, then they would meet the DC only 10% of the time. So, not much of a thing.

But in general, in play, proficiencies have a big impact on play, if the GM has challenges that call them into need. This is even more true if the GM uses the DMG ability score rule where having proficiency means you can auto pass easy (DC 10 or less) checks if you do not have disad on that check.

If one finds proficiencies to be usually not mattering, that seems more a difference in GM and player expectations than a rules issue.

Saeviomagy · Apr 5, 2019

5ekyu said:
Of course in your example it's not true but your math seems way off.

Barb 20 has Indom Might so their minimum score is 20. They auto-succeed on Hard climb at DC 20. (Not surprising, level 20 is not usually supposed to be worrying about a tough climb challenge. Thsts morevtier-1 and maybe early tier-2 "challenge" fodder.)

Weakling (below avg str) cannot succeed, cannot get to a 20 with strength 9 or less.

So, for your cherry picked example the proficiency does not matter cuz the characters specific stats and chosen DC make it automatic. If the weakling did have proficiency, then they would meet the DC only 10% of the time. So, not much of a thing.

Yeah, I made a couple of mistakes. First up I had a moderate DC in mid, secondly I forgot about indomitable might.

Take a DC 15 and anyone who doesn't have "you succeed at your check" baked into their class (like a level 17 barbarian). Suddenly both of them fail on a 1-3, both pass on a 16+ and you can only see the poor climber fail when the good climber succeeds 60% of the time. At a DC 20, that still applies - the poor climber never passes, but the good climber only succeeds 60% of the time.

But in general, in play, proficiencies have a big impact on play, if the GM has challenges that call them into need. This is even more true if the GM uses the DMG ability score rule where having proficiency means you can auto pass easy (DC 10 or less) checks if you do not have disad on that check.

That just narrows the range where proficiency numbers matter, and makes the system less consistent.

Nebulous · May 3, 2019

I didn't read this entire thread so forgive me if I rehash something already stated. I also as DM have problems with the D&D skill system. To me, the d20 roll seems vastly more important than what a player is actually good at. A raging barbarian with a 20 Strength can fail to batter down a locked DC15 door, while his companion wizard with a -4 Strength, in a wheelchair, can roll a 20 and bulldoze an equally locked door. That's an extreme example but I see it happen in many ways all the time; the PCs just try to roll high, irrelevant if they are particularly good at something, and then all try to roll high at the same time, such as 5 Insight checks to see if someone is lying. But this is so baked into the rules that I wouldn't really know how to address it. I would prefer if skill were more important than luck I suppose. Of course the combat system is the same deal, but that doesn't bother me as much.

I'm inclined to often just let the PCs auto-succeed at Searching and whatnot unless I know something is deliberately hidden and supposed to be hard to find. If they kill a guard and want to loot his body, no need to roll a search check, you just grab a handful of coins.

iserith · May 3, 2019

Nebulous said:
I'm inclined to often just let the PCs auto-succeed at Searching and whatnot unless I know something is deliberately hidden and supposed to be hard to find. If they kill a guard and want to loot his body, no need to roll a search check, you just grab a handful of coins.

Your conclusions are supported by the rules. The DM is the only one who can call for checks anyway (not the players) and he or she does that only if the outcome of the task described by the player has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. If one or both of those elements are not in place, there is no roll - the task succeeds or fails and is narrated by the DM accordingly.

robus · May 3, 2019

[MENTION=31465]Nebulous[/MENTION], you might find the Angry GM's latest piece helpful too: https://theangrygm.com/being-in-flex-able/ (along with Iserith's Adjudicating Actions guide in "Best of" thread.)

Basically if you find that the game results are ridiculous you're feeding the wrong inputs into the rules. If the Barbarian fails at a strength check don't allow another PC to "have a go", the dice will inevitably roll a suitably high number to make the outcome questionable. A different PC demands a different approach or something else in the situation to change to make the additional roll (if needed) relevant.

Nebulous · May 3, 2019

iserith said:
Your conclusions are supported by the rules. The DM is the only one who can call for checks anyway (not the players) and he or she does that only if the outcome of the task described by the player has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. If one or both of those elements are not in place, there is no roll - the task succeeds or fails and is narrated by the DM accordingly.

I think we regularly flub this then. Usually a player enters a room and says, "I'm make a perception check." or "I'm going to check the door for traps." and rolls. "Or, "I don't know what this monster is, I'll make a Nature/Arcana check to learn about it" (hoping of course, in all cases, for a nat 20).

Could you tell me expressly where the rules state that the DM calls for the checks, not the players?

robus · May 3, 2019

Nebulous said:
Could you tell me expressly where the rules state that the DM calls for the checks, not the players?

On Page 4 of the basic rules:

How to Play
The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.

1. The DM describes the environment. The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).

2. The players describe what they want to do. Some- times one player speaks for the whole party, saying, “We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.

Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.

The player is supposed to describe their action in natural language. The DM adjudicates the action calling for a ability check if there's uncertainty (and a meaningful cost to failure).

Edit: added some bold for clarity

Nebulous · May 3, 2019

robus said:
[MENTION=31465]Nebulous[/MENTION], you might find the Angry GM's latest piece helpful too: https://theangrygm.com/being-in-flex-able/ (along with Iserith's Adjudicating Actions guide in "Best of" thread.)

Basically if you find that the game results are ridiculous you're feeding the wrong inputs into the rules. If the Barbarian fails at a strength check don't allow another PC to "have a go", the dice will inevitably roll a suitably high number to make the outcome questionable. A different PC demands a different approach or something else in the situation to change to make the additional roll (if needed) relevant.

Thanks, I'll check that out. But what would be the in-game reasoning to not let multiple people try the same thing, such as bashing down a door? It would be easier if D&D had more built in autosuccess rules; if you have such and such stat you just DO that thing. It seems like common sense but for some reason myself and my players have gotten into the habit of rolling too much and relying on chance. I'd really like to move away from that.

JiffyPopTart · May 3, 2019

Saeviomagy said:
Has anyone brought up the fact that in the current edition, skill modifiers usually don't matter? A 1st level weakling with no athletics proficiency will get the same result on a hard climb as the level 20 max-strength barbarian 45% of the time. Would it matter if the proficiency involved is 'climbing' instead of 'athletics' when the numbers mean so little?

If you, Saeviomagy, were somehow teleported into your D&D game (Tron style) and directly onto the side of a cliff you were in the middle of free climbing and had to choose a body for the ascent would you choose....

A) 1st level weakling with no Athletics Proficiency
B) 20th level max-STR barbarian

Obviously B, because you would have a way less chance of falling to your death.

DS

Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system

The Crimson Binome

Hero

5ekyu

Hero

Saeviomagy

Adventurer

Nebulous

Legend

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller

Nebulous

Legend

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller

Nebulous

Legend

JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark

Similar Threads