D&D 5E Skills Redux

[Corwin]

I mean that Criminal provides Deception and Stealth, two very "criminal-y" skills.

I don't want characters to pick Criminal in order to acquire decidely un-criminal skills; but by the rules as written that is exactly what happens / can happen when the character is a Rogue.

This is not merely theorycrafting by the way. My players generally made sure their background overlapped with their class, so they could get one or two free skills, essentially rending the restriction that is the class list moot.

This is what my change will put an end to.

Any character picking Criminal will get criminal-y skills. Either because they gain Deception and Stealth, or because their class list is already sufficiently criminal-y.

A Rogue could have Depection and Stealth already, and could then pick, for example, Thievery and Dungeoneering instead. But she could not pick Criminal to get Feylore or History, for example.

(Of course, IRL examples doesn't involve History - IRL examples almost always involve characters without Perception on their class list getting Perception. What's the point then about restricting Perception to only some classes...?)

Hope that sorts it out.

Yes, thank you. When you said, "least likely Rogue to have a criminal-y skill set," I thought you meant they where a criminal without the criminal-y skills. Which, of course, they still do have. Just in addition to a few more skills that help round out their concept. Because they are 'criminal-y". So, really more like "Criminal+".

I know this may sound crazy (though plus side: doesn't involve massive homebrewing and houseruling), but have you considered asking your players to play in good faith? Rather than trying to game and manipulate the system, so you are then forced to do all this extra work as a form of damage control?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Okay, so with one full campaign under my belt, here's what doesn't work well with 5e skills:

"doesn't" are you sure? ...

- it's too easy to take the best skills. No matter what class, race and concept all my characters easily took the skills they wanted

That you can take the skills you want for your character sounds like a feature. Maybe the tweak would be to make sure there isn't a 'best' skill. Trim or consolidate any that are sub-par, for instance.

- dilution of skill monkey niche. 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

- investigation is utterly unused

Just call for more investigation checks instead of so many Perception checks.

- the mess that is skill and tool proficiency is a mess

That sounds circular, but tool proficiencies are sadly open-ended and ill-defined, I have to agree.

- the idea that you could use the same skill with different abilities is a good one, but completely undercooked

By all means, turn up the heat. Call for more STAT + Proficiency checks rather than 'skill' checks.

My playing style means there are some commonly taken actions in the game. The skills must match those actions. I don't want perception to be that all-powerful that isn't apparent from just reading the PHB but what practical play makes it into. Modules use Perception for EVERYTHING.

Substitute investigation. Substitute other skills, for that matter. It's the DM that calls for checks. Who cares what the module says?

Also, finding out more by talking to people and visiting bars is a common action. There needs to be a skill for that.

Streetwise?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Okay, so with one full campaign under my belt, here's what doesn't work well with 5e skills:

"doesn't" are you sure? ...

- it's too easy to take the best skills. No matter what class, race and concept all my characters easily took the skills they wanted

That you can take the skills you want for your character sounds like a feature. Maybe the tweak would be to make sure there isn't a 'best' skill. Trim or consolidate any that are sub-par, for instance.

- dilution of skill monkey niche. 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

5e seems to have rejected the more traditional notion of niche-protection along with its more formal articulation as 'Roles.' It's not just skills, across the board you can lift traditionally 'niche' bits from any class - via a feat or a background or, of course, MCing.

'Niches,' like roles, may still exist de-facto, but they're not much protected in 5e. A PC can be good at filling one or more, depending on the choices the player makes.

- investigation is utterly unused

Just call for more investigation checks instead of so many Perception checks.

- the mess that is skill and tool proficiency is a mess

That sounds circular, but tool proficiencies are sadly open-ended and ill-defined, I have to agree.

- the idea that you could use the same skill with different abilities is a good one, but completely undercooked

By all means, turn up the heat. Call for more STAT + Proficiency checks rather than 'skill' checks.

My playing style means there are some commonly taken actions in the game. The skills must match those actions. I don't want perception to be that all-powerful that isn't apparent from just reading the PHB but what practical play makes it into. Modules use Perception for EVERYTHING.

Substitute investigation. Substitute other skills, for that matter. It's the DM that calls for checks. Who cares what the module says?

Also, finding out more by talking to people and visiting bars is a common action. There needs to be a skill for that.

Streetwise?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Basically [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]'s new rule about duplicate skill replacement coming from the class list just results in the same method of having players choose Background first and then Class. The PC ends up with the two skills from the Background, and then two or more skills from the Class list, with no overlap. It's not really that big a change or anything worth really questioning. The results are the same no matter which way you do it (Background selection then Class selection... or Class selection then Background selection, with any duplicate replacements coming from the class list.)

 

[CapnZapp]

Wouldn't this encourage background shopping, though?

At least you're stuck with the Background you chose.

With the present system you can often pick a Background you like (or one close to it) and STILL ignore your class list.

I can only vouch for the PHB Backgrounds. It's not as if my players bring some obscure book and demand it to be allowed. So I'd like to focus on the PHB options at least initially.

And Sailor is the only Background with Perception. But this is one of the least desirable background - very few adventures take place at sea (or even in port cities, up rivers etc).

This might have been a problem if one of the most generic least-restrictive backgrounds that everybody can identify with - like Folk Hero - gave out the two best skills in the game. But I don't see a (huge) problem, at least not now.

Let's not forget that we're "only" talking skills here. This is nowhere near, say, the situation where you in 3E "had to" pick a god based on its domains (or portfolio or whatever it was called). There you could talk about "domain shopping", since domain abilities and domain selections really affected your power as a character.

In my case, you either pick a "nature guy" if you absolutely need Perception proficiency, or you pick Bard or Rogue. Or you can play, say an Half-Elf*. Or, you can persuade your DM that Perception is a racial skill for Elves and pick an Int 12 Elf.
*) not really on topic here but in my "Races Redux" half-elves gain two racial skills, so some DMs won't allow Perception here...

See? Not such a huge restriction after all, eh? But it is at least still a restriction. Not allowing every human Fighter or dwarf Wizard to pick Perception is IMHO a much more interesting restriction all things considered.

And even then a variant Human can start the game with Skilled feat.

And then we are forgetting where we started - the dwarf can still be a Sailor, which doesn't need to be as ridicoulous as it sounds... perhaps the Wizard is a former galley slave of the duergar, which lives in a city on the shores of a vast underground lake...

So let's not blow the "background shopping" out of proportion

 

[CapnZapp]

Basically [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]'s new rule about duplicate skill replacement coming from the class list just results in the same method of having players choose Background first and then Class. The PC ends up with the two skills from the Background, and then two or more skills from the Class list, with no overlap. It's not really that big a change or anything worth really questioning. The results are the same no matter which way you do it (Background selection then Class selection... or Class selection then Background selection, with any duplicate replacements coming from the class list.)

Thank you. Perhaps that will help some people see the proportions in this?

 

[CapnZapp]

post

Thanks. Do you have any thoughts on the actual Redux?

 

[Corwin]

At least you're stuck with the Background you chose.

With the present system you can often pick a Background you like (or one close to it) and STILL ignore your class list.

I can only vouch for the PHB Backgrounds. It's not as if my players bring some obscure book and demand it to be allowed. So I'd like to focus on the PHB options at least initially.

And Sailor is the only Background with Perception. But this is one of the least desirable background - very few adventures take place at sea (or even in port cities, up rivers etc).

But the PHB allows for the creation of any background that can be imagined. If your players are as creative and system-manipulative as you suggest, won't they just come up with a new background that still gives them what they want?

Again, I think Rule Zero "grown-up talk", where needs are expressed and everyone agrees to play in good faith, is such a hugely beneficial first step. It cuts out a lot of this end-around extra work, IMX.

 

[Satyrn]

But the PHB allows for the creation of any background that can be imagined. If your players are as creative and system-manipulative as you suggest, won't they just come up with a new background that still gives them what they want?

He's not said it outright, but it looks like his table already plays without the option to build a background from a scratch. I don't know if it was an intentional choice or if they didn't notice the rule (it's kind of tucked off in a corner that's easily skimmed over) , but they are playing with the houserule I suggested he hardcode into his redux rules: "Pick a background from this list, or create one with DM approval."

 

[Caliban]

Okay, so with one full campaign under my belt, here's what doesn't work well with 5e skills:
- it's too easy to take the best skills. No matter what class, race and concept all my characters easily took the skills they wanted
- dilution of skill monkey niche. 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

- the mess that is skill and tool proficiency is a mess

So your problem is that the people can take the skills they want, and it's fun to do so? Oh, and tool proficiencies are a mess...because they are a mess.

Well alrighty then.