D&D 5E Skills Redux

[Corwin]

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."

But even "with DM approval" it shouldn't be too hard to come up with something that gives you the skills you are looking to add to your character. Because again, it seems like, to me at least, his players tend to "feature fish". IMX, its easy to come up with a narrative to explain whatever it is you are looking for. Rather than the other way around, where you are looking for something that matches a narrative.

 

[Satyrn]

But even "with DM approval" it shouldn't be too hard to come up with something that gives you the skills you are looking to add to your character. Because again, it seems like, to me at least, his players tend to "feature fish". IMX, its easy to come up with a narrative to explain whatever it is you are looking for. Rather than the other way around, where you are looking for something that matches a narrative.

Hmmm, you might be right.

Zapp, drop the "or create one with DM approval" bit.

 

[nswanson27]

I think the big thing about people choosing the skill proficiencies that they do is because those are the ones that are actually relevant. Might I suggest that the real problem here is that many adventures heavily weight some skills over others?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

- 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

Isn't being able to take the skills they want a good thing for characters?

- 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

Interesting. Do you also feel the same way about healing, and parties no longer requiring someone to play a cleric specifically?

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

I use Charisma(Investigation) for that in general.

Also, we often want to find out whether the characters know a particular strength or weakness about a monster (the PLAYERS are D&D veterans and often know much more than the characters). 4E monster knowledge checks was perfect for this.

Aren't there equivalent knowledge skills in 5e though?

I find the "animal rule" a good distinction for whether to use Perception or Investigation.

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.

OK. So you still use Athletics for grappling/shoving/knocking prone, but you allow Might to be used to resist them? And also Might to be used to break out of grapples.

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.

Have you houseruled out the ability to simply swap around what skills any particular background grants?

 

[dave2008]

Yeah, I've read all the threads and I simply can't make it work.

Interesting, the separation of Macro (perception) and Micro (Investigation) seem very intuitive and simple to me. Everyone is different - that is what makes the world a wonderful and dangerous place

 

[Satyrn]

Off the cuff suggestion for you [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]: If Perception is a uniquely usefull skill for your table, remove it from the list of skills.

Instead, make it akin to Initiative (whatever category of thing Initiative is) and then for the classes and races that ought to be perceptive, give them a Perception boost of some sort.

 

[smokerdragoon]

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

Talking to people and visiting bars, to gather information, sounds like a CHA + investigation check to me.

 

[Caliban]

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

Talking to people and visiting bars, to gather information, sounds like a CHA + investigation check to me.

Or just Persuasion (Cha), as you convince people that you are a great guy and should tell you stuff. But I like the idea of Investigate (Cha).

 

[Corwin]

Hmmm, you might be right.

Zapp, drop the "or create one with DM approval" bit.

Which, to me, is just more buy-in to the end-around method of trying to thwart the players.

My experiences, with the type of playstyle I'm discussing, invariably leads to a sort of sub-game. In the meta, as it were. Where the DM is working to plug things they perceive as exploits or holes, while the players in turn try to figure out ways around the plugs (or find entirely new things to exploit).

 

[Saeviomagy]

Or just Persuasion (Cha), as you convince people that you are a great guy and should tell you stuff. But I like the idea of Investigate (Cha).

I much prefer just a (cha) roll, and then the player can suggest what proficiency they'd like to apply and how. Hang out in the temple district? (cha) religion might work. Or (cha) persuasion. Or (cha) intimidate.

My takeaways from this thread?
I like might. It's a definite gap in the current skill lists.

I want to roll acrobatics and athletics into each other. They seem redundant when I can choose the stat the roll uses anyway. Also see the next point about their declining value.

I want to remove skill checks from the combat system to fix 'monsters don't grapple well' and related issues. So grapple and the like will henceforth be an appropriate attack roll vs a saving throw.

My personal flavour of investigate vs perception is one of active vs passive: ie - investigate applies if you have to do something, perception applies if you just stand back and observe. Investigation checks tend to have lower DCs, or make more things possible. Perception is able to be used quickly and usually more safely. Passive checks are reserved for one half of opposed checks or so I can eyeball things I can't be bothered with a roll for.