D&D 5E Skills Redux

[Ganymede81]

All that remains is to collect various changes in mechanics.

First up, the crucial restriction on what to do when your Class and Background skills overlap.

If your background gives you a skill proficiency you have already, pick a replacement from your list of class skills. Only if you run out of class skills do you get to pick a skill freely.

The base rules for Backgrounds already allow you to freely swap out skill and tool proficiencies, languages, and features when you select your background. Your alternative here seems to weaken/narrow that. Why?

 

[CapnZapp]

Like it better but I still would prefer something like 3.5, spend a few skill points every level. Maybe max it out at 1/2 your level or something.

Sure, but that's out of scope for my needs and wants.

Meaning that I don't see that as a comment on my Redux specifically. It sounds like you would have the same sentiment for the core skill set too.

 

[CapnZapp]

Do you still use Strength (Athletics) for grappling/pushing/knocking prone, or has that changed as well?

Good question.

Short answer: "no".

Long answer - just as you don't need Athletics to defend yourself (escape from) a grapple if you have Acrobatics, I can see big monsters "bursting" the grapple using Might.

Of course, this only matters if the monster have Might proficiency. But I find it easier to accept that big brutish monsters have something primitive like "Might" than actual Athletics training.

Which is one reason for adding Might to the game I do not like how fighters can wrestle down monsters much bigger and beefier than themselves, just because the designers didn't give them skill proficiencies. With Might I solve this particular issue without having to enter a discussion on why a monster has trained to swim and climb and wrestle. They aren't good grapplers (which you still need Athletics for), they are just hard to keep down because of their sheer Might!

Same with not getting shoved or pushed. No formal training needed - if you look mighty you probably are.

 

[eayres33]

Talking about written campaigns, specifically Out of the Abyss.

So please don't twist to be "if X is underused, maybe use it more" as the obvious solution. Things aren't that trivial.

But it can be that trivial. It says do a perception, you think it should be investigation, you call for an investigation check. The written campaigns all have holes, if your players do something unexpected they go off the rails of the campaign and you either need to improvise or bring them back on the rails.

It being a written campaign doesn't change anything about the if X is under used, use it more solution. Or you can add pages of codified rules. The first options works way better for me, but if the second works for you that's great. I just think its a style thing and nothing lacking in the core rules.

 

[alienux]

Sure its fun a fighter can pick locks, but the reason classes must be rigid is to make the party want a rogue and feel the pain when one isn't there

This is my biggest issue with skills in 5E. I personally like skills to help define a class, not just make the class better at them.

 

[CapnZapp]

Your system is workable, though a little too specific for my tastes these days. What I really enjoy about 5e is the ability to set a DC, choose a stat(skill-s) and let the player roll in a simple, expeditious manner. There are a whole range of players out there who either grok how to use stat/skills or just see it as another roll and keeping things streamlined at the table is always a good thing if it still captures the spirit of the activity in a satisfying way. Breaking away from Perception being a catch-all is important that I find the macro/micro thing does pretty well.

I agree with everything you say (except I don't see why my system is "too specific" where presumably the original system isn't?)

I just don't see an argument to keep Investigation in there.

I understand that you don't need to remove/replace Investigation since you can make it work. I have tried for over a year, I never seem to get around to ask for investigation checks - the skill seems hard to grasp and abstract to me. In the end, I've only used it when the scenario specifically asks for it, which doesn't happen often.

So I'm doing myself a favor and dumping it altogether. I don't feel I'm losing anything of value. In fact, I feel I'm only getting rid of difficult and unfamiliar judgment calls I have never had to do before that add nothing to the game.

 

[Corwin]

But it can be that trivial. It says do a perception, you think it should be investigation, you call for an investigation check.

I asked for an example, because I would like to know if the book says something like, "A successful DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check informs the character that there is a pressure plate in the floor that triggers the ceiling to collapse when stepped on." Because that would indeed be a poor application of the Perception skill.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not sure I understand. Having read, and run, pre-written campaigns myself (though I admit I only played through OotA--never read it), I don't recall them preordaining every roll a group might/will make. Maybe can you give an example from OotA, wherein Perception was improperly used in place of Investigation? So I can understand what you mean.


I didn't say to use down time. I suggested maybe clipping from the UA some of its ideas to help develop something, with carousing and information gathering, for your houseruled skill system that cover similar ground.

As for Perception, almost every interesting, vital and/or dangerous check that is spelled out call for Perception. That doesn't mean the text is full of them. For the most part it is up to the DM. But check the sections on Tower of Araj and Gromph's Sanctum - even magic traps only require a Percept DC 17 check to detect. And that is trivial: most parties will have at least one party member with high Wisdom and Perception proficiency = passive perception 17 easy.

Whether this is "improper" or should have been Investigation, I don't know. As I am saying, I can't grok Investigation. It's asking the "wrong" questions.

Take Warmaster for instance. He's talking (all in good faith) about micro and macro. But that means nothing to me. I want my skills to divide on what it is that the characters are trying to sense.

Monster ambush? Perception. Traps? Find Traps (which I bundle into "Dungeoneering"). Social encounter? Insight.

This way it comes easy and natural to me. Micro macro? Doesn't say me a thing.

I never understood what "game thing" Investigation covers in the game. Reading modules does not help - I can't find it being consistently used, even by official authors. So in the bin it goes.

Hope that helps you understand why I'm removing it. I understand you find it workable, and so you don't need to remove it. And that's fine.

 

[CapnZapp]

Has anyone who owns an AP or two or three gone through the books and determined how often certain skills are called for?

I rarely use Perception and use Investigation all the time in my campaign. But I'm the DM and I'm using converted 1ed and BECMI adventures so I can use what I want.

Sure.

But if you aren't using the official campaigns, anything goes.

As for me, I need Investigation gone so I'm not continously faced with deciding whether to use it or not. I tried for sixteen levels and over a year of DMing and couldn't make it work. I never found a balance where Investigation became an useful skill to take.

 

[Corwin]

As for Perception, almost every interesting, vital and/or dangerous check that is spelled out call for Perception. That doesn't mean the text is full of them. For the most part it is up to the DM. But check the sections on Tower of Araj and Gromph's Sanctum - even magic traps only require a Percept DC 17 check to detect. And that is trivial: most parties will have at least one party member with high Wisdom and Perception proficiency = passive perception 17 easy.

Whether this is "improper" or should have been Investigation, I don't know. As I am saying, I can't grok Investigation. It's asking the "wrong" questions.

But detecting something, and understanding what it is, are two separate things. Which is--to me at least--the distinction between Perception and Investigation. IMO, a good trapsmith rogue should have a decent Intelligence and the Investigate skill. Not just Perception.

As for OotA, I recall our party having to make Investigate checks. So <shrug>, I guess. You're going to axe it, and that's fine. I was just trying to grok things on your end as well.