skill proficiencies point buy

Blue said:

The bigger idea was not just to pair skills and ability scores as needed, a variant rule that I have to say I'm the only one I see doing around here, but to trim down the skill list so everything on it was meaningful. Combining similar choices like Athletics & Acrobatics, and leaving them differentiated by the ability score. And folding little used ones like Medicine into other skills, again differentiated by ability score.

Click to expand...

tglassy said:

Athletics and acrobatics aren’t he same thing, though. Just because you’re strong and athletic doesn’t mean you’ll be able to do things an acrobat can do, and visa versa. They are both related to physical ability, but are very much different skills.

Click to expand...

I agree, I see a very large difference between Athletics and Acrobatics.

ART! said:

The only issue there is it adds rolling of dice where previously there was none. Personally, as a DM, I prefer looking at the PC's Passive Perception, and whoever has it at or higher than, for instance, the bad guy's Stealth roll total - or 10+Stealth bonus, to be even quicker about it - whoever has an equal or higher PP notices the bad guy. It has the added bonus of not alerting the players to the fact that something fishy is going on.

Click to expand...

Nebulous said:

Perception is totally messed up, especially when you have someone with Observant and a Passive DC of 22+ and the game doesn't adequately give examples. After 5 years of 5e we still confuse Investigation and Perception because of the overlap.

Click to expand...

We use passive scores somewhat differently. If you have a passive score that is high enough to "detect" something, the DM tells you to roll a check even if you don't say you want to. For example, if the characters walk past a secret door with a DC 20, a character with a Passive Perception of 20 or better might notice the door even if they aren't looking. So, the DM will tell the player to roll and if they make it, the character notices the secret door. In other words, high passive scores give you a chance to notice something but it isn't automatic.This makes Observant useful but not automatic since when you roll your check, you don't get the +5 bonus. If you play with passive automatically noticing things without a roll, it is too powerful, at least at our table. We've never had an issue with overlap of Investigation and Perception but I could see where others might have some problems if you don't have clear definitions in use.

dnd4vr said:

I agree, I see a very large difference between Athletics and Acrobatics.

Click to expand...

The question isn't if you see a big difference between Athletics and Acrobatics. The question is if MECHANICALLY you see a big difference between Athletics and Acrobatics that aren't covered by the differences in ability scores? Many of the checks needed (escaping grapples, spells, etc.) right now can use either. And a bunch should. For example, right now someone with expertise in acrobatics with a 20 DEX has no indication that they can climb. That's STR (Athletics). I've literally had two different players curse that their uber-agile elves most likely would fail at climbing a tree or wall.

dnd4vr said:

We use passive scores somewhat differently. If you have a passive score that is high enough to "detect" something, the DM tells you to roll a check even if you don't say you want to.

Click to expand...

This is double jeopardy. Just shy of half the people who could detect something will never get a roll, and of those that get a role many will still fail. Use one or the other, otherwise you are drastically changing the success/fail percentages in a way that messes up the math of the system.

Blue said:

The question isn't if you see a big difference between Athletics and Acrobatics. The question is if MECHANICALLY you see a big difference between Athletics and Acrobatics that aren't covered by the differences in ability scores? Many of the checks needed (escaping grapples, spells, etc.) right now can use either. And a bunch should. For example, right now someone with expertise in acrobatics with a 20 DEX has no indication that they can climb. That's STR (Athletics). I've literally had two different players curse that their uber-agile elves most likely would fail at climbing a tree or wall. This is double jeopardy. Just shy of half the people who could detect something will never get a roll, and of those that get a role many will still fail. Use one or the other, otherwise you are drastically changing the success/fail percentages in a way that messes up the math of the system.

Click to expand...

"I've literally had two different players curse that their uber-agile elves most likely would fail at climbing a tree or wall."

First, climbing by default doesnt requir a check. Isnt it half speed unless it's difficult? What kind of tree climbing are we talking about?

But, the system already allows the GM to allow/call-for a Dex (Athletics) check if they think it's appropriate.

So your higher dex elf wanting to climb a tree just has to describe his actions in a way that leads the GM to decide (for a difficult climb) that Dex (Athletics ) is the appropriate call.

Second, the two different proficiencies divide the types of training - the kinds of things a character has experience in. The player can choose the ones appropriate to their character. If your elf is supposed to be very good at climbing, why didnt you take athletics since that is the skill that includes climbing? Complaints like thst early on would likely be met with "ok so you wanna swap out what for what in your background?" In between games

Third, to me, when a player is unhappy at the success/fail etc in a game they are playing in, that's more indicative of a disconnect between the GM depiction and their understanding. Did the GM not describe and set the scene with the tree up in a way that they understand why a check is even needed and why it's so difficult for them to succeed? In my gsmes, unless there are surprises or unknowns, my players tend to know the DC before attempting a task due to my efforts st being not just descriptive but informative in my depictions of the situations.

Fourth, design...


I would generally be against creating an overly broad "lets get physical" mega-skill myself when I see nature, religion, etc snd persuasion, deception, intimidate perform etc broken down as they are. It seem inconsistent with the rest.

Consider...

Physical stuff
Ability scores tested Str or Dex (rarely con)
Skills athletics, acrobatics, stealth, sleight hand and sometimes performance maybe?

Brainy stuff
Abilities tested Int Wis
Religion, Arcana, History, nature, investigation, Medicine (insight arguably)

Social stuff
Ability tested Cha or Wis (possibly Int)
Deception, Persuasion, Intimidation, insight, (investigation useful)

What's left - survival, animal handling and perception?

Regardless of where you put those, it really doesnt look like the physical set is somehow plagued by excessive sub-dividing and compared to the rest in need of consolidation.

People aren't happy because the skill that lets them climb stuff is linked to a stat they want to dump. There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea that Strength should determine climbing ability either. Guys who free climb are not weak. Is there an argument for Dex maybe playing a role? Sure, but that's true of lots of skills. There's a pretty significant element of strength involved in Acrobatics for example, but I don't see many people complaining that their fighter should be able to use his STR there instead of DEX. STR is probably the biggest dump start in 5E, and I think that's the actual problem - people want to min max Dex, and rightfully so because it does more, and often (mostly) do that at the expense of STR (plus another stat). That's fine, but arguing that the main adventuring activity linked to STR needs to change to match your maxed stat feels a lot like asking to have your cake and eat it too (regardless of real world examples). It's a byproduct of a character build system that encourages dump stats and heavily rewards maxed stats.

Yeah, if you’re dumping strength, I don’t care how acrobatic you are, you aren’t climbing anything difficult. At all. It is all strength there.

Acrobatics is being able to flip around and have quick reflexes. Climbing has nothing to do with that. If your elf player dumped strength and is complaining because they can’t do a pull up, I’m sorry, but that’s life. Make his character lift some weights and give him a few points of strength on his next ASI. That’s the best I can say.

Fenris-77 said:

People aren't happy because the skill that lets them climb stuff is linked to a stat they want to dump. There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea that Strength should determine climbing ability either. Guys who free climb are not weak. Is there an argument for Dex maybe playing a role? Sure, but that's true of lots of skills. There's a pretty significant element of strength involved in Acrobatics for example, but I don't see many people complaining that their fighter should be able to use his STR there instead of DEX. STR is probably the biggest dump start in 5E, and I think that's the actual problem - people want to min max Dex, and rightfully so because it does more, and often (mostly) do that at the expense of STR (plus another stat). That's fine, but arguing that the main adventuring activity linked to STR needs to change to match your maxed stat feels a lot like asking to have your cake and eat it too (regardless of real world examples). It's a byproduct of a character build system that encourages dump stats and heavily rewards maxed stats.

Click to expand...

Also, honestly, put one of your proficiencies into athletics and even with 8 str you are in good standing for most climbs that the majority of your party will be willing to try. If its gonna be needing prime-stst plus prof to try, many in your group wont be lining up for it - just the one specialist.

And this ignores that the default for climb is * no check needed*.

" my elf cant climb trees" is a GM isdue, not a skill parsing one.

Xeviat said:

I'd rather people roll a die to notice a trap than just check their passive Perception. Since I know what their passive scores are, I'm either deciding I want them to find the trap, I want them to not find the trap if they're hurrying, or I don't want them to find the trap unless they're looking for it. I prefer it to be random all the time, and a last second Wis save to notice the trap before you trigger it is better.

Let them roll a Perception check when they're actively searching. Skills should always be called upon by players IMHO.

Click to expand...

I would humbly suggest that if you need PCs to roll a dice to notice traps, you have too many "gotcha" types of traps and you aren't making traps into encounters. To me the best traps are the ones that PCs notice right away -- the trick is how to overcome the trap. If the trap is just save or take damage they are generally unfun and just become a hp tax.

In games I've played in and run, using Acrobatics to climb is pretty common. If there are things to jump onto, off of, bounce off of, etc, then an acrobatics roll or two might get you where you're trying to be. Think wuxia stunts getting tot he top of a wall by bounding back and forth between the wall and a tree or another building or a pole or something, as opposed to an Athletics climb straight up the wall with maybe using the tree for support or back-up.

ART! said:

In games I've played in and run, using Acrobatics to climb is pretty common. If there are things to jump onto, off of, bounce off of, etc, then an acrobatics roll or two might get you where you're trying to be. Think wuxia stunts getting tot he top of a wall by bounding back and forth between the wall and a tree or another building or a pole or something, as opposed to an Athletics climb straight up the wall with maybe using the tree for support or back-up.

Click to expand...

Since jumping, climbing and grabbing onto are *all* default Strenth checks in 5e, I could easily see an approach involving jumping onto, grabbing onto etc tree to wall etc as a good case for Strength (Acrobatics) climbing checks. Definitely agree with you there.

In fact, I might even let such take a no-roll-needed half-speed climb into making a check to try and get it done at full speed.

No arguments.

Yup, using Acrobatics to climb is common. That doesn't mean it's not (up to a point) a self serving move by groups who don't want to see their Dex maxed characters slighted by something as plebian as a skill check. One of the reasons, maybe the main reason, that the skills are spread over the different stats is so that every build has something they're good at and no one stat dominayes too much. Dex builds are already king of 5E and I don't think they need any more help. The arguments from realism are fine, and there's a good reason people index them, but D&D is a game, not a simulation. The real world isn't the issue.