D&D 5E Designing a skill system that the PLAYER can opt into.

[Rune]

So, the latest L&L tells us that feats are being designed so that players can choose whether they want to use them or not, but the inclusion of skills will have to be the DM's decision, because the DCs will have to be higher.

This need not be so. If a skill provides a baseline minimum proficiency, rather than expanding upon the maximum, the DCs won't be effected at all.

The "Skilled" Option:

It could be pretty simple, actually. Instead of the normal ability check at 1d20 + ability modifier, a trained skill would allow the player to make the check at 1d10 + 10 + ability modifier. A character's highest degree of success is still bound by natural talent, but the chance of failure is greatly reduced.

The "Skill-Levels" Option:

If you want to be able to increase skill as the character levels, you could change the die type (and corresponding bonus) at different points. The lowest level of the skill would provide 1d12 + 8 + ability modifier. The next level would provide 1d10 + 10 + ability modifier. Then, 1d8 + 12 + ability modifier. Followed by 1d6 + 14 + ability modifier. And, finally, the highest level of mastery: 1d4 + 16 + ability modifier. (The really nice thing about this approach is that, at the master level, you'd really only need to roll for the hardest tasks; most others would automatically succeed.)

These tiers could easily be given titles, such as these provided by [MENTION=61749]Jeff Carlsen[/MENTION]: Apprentice, Journeyman, Professional, Expert, and Master.

So, how to balance the character that has, say, 4 of these skills with one who doesn't? I'm sure there are plenty of ways. Personally, I'd like to see something that more or less takes the place of the skills--that is, a simplified means of making task accomplishment easier.

The "Non-Skilled" Option:

This is how I'd do it: For every trained skill that the character would be entitled to, but chooses not to, I'd give them one use of a "Succeed when you need to" ability (that, when expended, would grant automatic success to an ability check or contest). Each use, once expended, would only recharge after the character has gained a new level.

Of course, this leaves one issue. Over the course of this thread, it has become clear that some folk actually like rolling high results with their skilled characters to show off how specialized they are. For them, capping all ability checks (even skilled ones) at the same maximum (that is, 20 + ability modifier) is simply not satisfying.

The "Exceed the Cap" Option:

A simple solution to that problem would be to add the following option to exceed the cap: If you roll the maximum value for your ability check, something crazy good happens (or the die explodes, if your player really likes rolling dice!).

As this option would also apply to characters opting out of the skill system, it would still be balanced with such a character who has the "Succeed when you need to" ability (or something similar). Also, it would mean that more skilled characters would tend to exceed that gap more frequently than less (or non-) skilled characters, as the dice used would be smaller.

 

[Szatany]

So, how to balance the character that has, say, 4 of these skills with one who doesn't?

The easiest way would be to allow trade +1 in ability score for 5* skills.
* - not sure on the actual number.

It could be pretty simple, actually. Instead of the normal ability check at 1d20 + ability modifier, a trained skill would allow the player to make the check at 1d10 + 10 + ability modifier. A character's highest degree of success is still bound by natural talent, but the chance of failure is greatly reduced.

I like that, exactly the idea I had too.
Ultimately I decided against it because I simply like rolling d20, and not d8 or d4 for my tests. I found another solution, based on rerolls.

 

[zoroaster100]

Rune, I like your proposal a lot better than WOTC's latest proposal of having the skill system be incompatible with the standard DCs in the game.

 

[Rune]

Thanks! I think I'll try it out the next time I run the playtest.

 

[keterys]

1d10+10 averages to 15.5. Its upper bound may be the same, but the math is almost entirely different. For example:

Given that most tasks are a success when a PC rolls an 11 on a d20 at the moment, it's autosucceeding most of the time. For tougher tasks, you're changing the chance of success from 30% to 60% or 5% to 10%.

One way you could balance it is to say that PCs can opt into skills - they get -2 to the skills they don't have and +5 to the skills they do have. Now someone who doesn't pick skills can keep the straight up roll and the person with skills is better at their chosen few and worse at everything else.

 

[Rune]

The easiest way would be to allow trade +1 in ability score for 5* skills.
* - not sure on the actual number.

I did think about doing something like this; one nice thing about it is that it essentially trades one kind of ability check bonus with another--a half bonus to the high end of one ability's checks or a minimum competency with [however many] skills.

Essentially, this treats training in a bundle of skills as a feat.

Ultimately I decided against it because I simply like rolling d20, and not d8 or d4 for my tests. I found another solution, based on rerolls.

As a player, I'd probably choose the Succeed when you need to option a couple of times and train in a couple of skills for the best of both worlds. I personally wouldn't have a problem rolling smaller dice and adding larger bonuses as I got better at skills, if the DM didn't make me roll when I was automatically going to succeed.

 

[Szatany]

Succeed when you need to

Why do you prefer recharge on levelup?

 

[Rune]

1d10+10 averages to 15.5. Its upper bound may be the same, but the math is almost entirely different. For example:

Given that most tasks are a success when a PC rolls an 11 on a d20 at the moment, it's autosucceeding most of the time. For tougher tasks, you're changing the chance of success from 30% to 60% or 5% to 10%.

Which would make skill training awesome. Especially with advantage thrown in. Not seeing a problem, here.

One way you could balance it is to say that PCs can opt into skills - they get -2 to the skills they don't have and +5 to the skills they do have. Now someone who doesn't pick skills can keep the straight up roll and the person with skills is better at their chosen few and worse at everything else.

Balance what? Giving a player -2 to skills they don't have and +5 to skills they do have does not provide any incentive for the player to opt out of using skills. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Also, it retains the having to have different sets of DCs problem that the L&L talked about.

 

[Rune]

Why do you prefer recharge on levelup?

Two reasons: I think the flexibility in application for this ability is particularly potent and should probably be stretched over a longer period of gaming--especially if you want to the preserve the "when you need to" feel of it.

Also, if the resource were instead limited by in-game time, (per day, for instance), its utility would vary with the DM's play-style, but attaching it to the level-advancement chasis pretty much ensures than an even amount of adventuring passes in between recharges from table to table (at least insofar as level-advancement rates are consistent between groups).

 

[the Jester]

So, the latest L&L tells us that feats are being designed so that players can choose whether they want to use them or not, but the inclusion of skills will have to be the DM's decision, because the DCs will have to be higher.

Um... just to quibble, it doesn't actually say that; it specifically endorses the dm just accepting that pcs will succeed more often with skills.