Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system

[BookBarbarian]

Based on the Angry article I had a go at revising the character sheet to promote the ability scores and demote the skill & saving throw proficiencies. I quite like the result:

View attachment 106218

A while back on the DMsGuild WotC released a bunch of premade characters who's 'sheets' looked more like NPC statblocks.

I liked how simple it looked.

 

[robus]

A while back on the DMsGuild WotC released a bunch of premade characters who's 'sheets' looked more like NPC statblocks.

I liked how simple it looked.

Yeah, but it is quite dense though. Fine for an experienced player, but difficult to grok for a newbie I'd imagine?

 

[BookBarbarian]

Yeah, but it is quite dense though. Fine for an experienced player, but difficult to grok for a newbie I'd imagine?

Easy enough to use if handed to them.

Super difficult to do heavy modification to, for new items or abilities and such.

 

[Stalker0]

Thanks, I'll check that out. But what would be the in-game reasoning to not let multiple people try the same thing, such as bashing down a door?

I think the concept comes down to "if the best person can't do it...there's probably something to it".

When the barbarian rolls a 5 on the strength check to break down a door, you don't treat it as "man the barbarian almost fell on his face when attempting to break down the door".

Instead its "this door is basically welded shut, and is impossible to budge".

 

[iserith]

Right, and the Angry GM says so in that article, in the case of Animal Handling you would add your proficiency bonus if the player says I have Animal Handling, can I use that?

I find the easiest thing to do and the least prone to a mismatch in expectations is that the DM calls for the ability check and the player adds the skill proficiency that he or she thinks best aligns with his or her description of what the character is doing. This also means the DM need only work about 6 things (the ability scores) rather than all of the skill proficiencies. This method assumes that there's trust at the table and the players are playing in good faith, describing what they want to do and applying the appropriate skill proficiency to that effort as they see it.

 

[robus]

I find the easiest thing to do and the least prone to a mismatch in expectations is that the DM calls for the ability check and the player adds the skill proficiency that he or she thinks best aligns with his or her description of what the character is doing. This also means the DM need only work about 6 things (the ability scores) rather than all of the skill proficiencies. This method assumes that there's trust at the table and the players are playing in good faith, describing what they want to do and applying the appropriate skill proficiency to that effort as they see it.

I pushed back on Satyrn a bit at that idea, but you’re both probably right. If there’s trust then it should be fine, and, of course, if there’s not trust then there are going to much bigger issues than a skill proficiency battle

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think I definitely need to start enforcing this with my players more and "unlearning" some of the habits we have developed. That might go a long ways toward making me like the skill system more. I do think it gets abused too much or used in ways that are much broader than what they were intended.

They rarely, if ever, actually describe their actions. It falls on the dice roll to "be" their action, which is dull.

I've been encouraging the other players to narrate their characters actions instead of calling for rolls as well. The DM told me after one session when we discussed it that he'd decided to reward it by doing one of two things.

Suppose the players says, "I'm going to search in the corner behind the chair for a trapdoor or secret passage."
Our DM would either just say "When you moved the chair, one legs pulled on a cord in the floor and triggered the wall to crack open slightly." or if he still felt a rolls was better, would grant advantage on it since the player was specific in his intent and his actions indicate a greater likelihood of success.

I told him it's a great idea to reward good role-playing and game-play both, so maybe it will help your group?

 

[5ekyu]

I think the concept comes down to "if the best person can't do it...there's probably something to it".

When the barbarian rolls a 5 on the strength check to break down a door, you don't treat it as "man the barbarian almost fell on his face when attempting to break down the door".

Instead its "this door is basically welded shut, and is impossible to budge".

Instead, I represent it as a measure of how favorable the circumstances for that effort were - both in results and the perspective of the charsater.

So, nah, it's not welded shut, but part of the floor or ground gave wsy unexpectedly, or was slicker than expected, or any number things that seem very appropriate to the scene. Next guy, avoids those, maybe shoes up footing etc.

Alternatively, the effort dies push in, creating a slight opening, but something structurally goes awry and shifts and the door gets stuck. Now, future checks are at disadvantage but you can see into the next room, possibly teleport, send familiar etc. (Some progress with setback)

There are a lot of possibilities between the poles often put forth of infinite retries and one roll and that's it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

[MENTION=31465]Nebulous[/MENTION], you might find the Angry GM's latest piece helpful too: https://theangrygm.com/being-in-flex-able/ (along with Iserith's Adjudicating Actions guide in "Best of" thread.)

Basically if you find that the game results are ridiculous you're feeding the wrong inputs into the rules. If the Barbarian fails at a strength check don't allow another PC to "have a go", the dice will inevitably roll a suitably high number to make the outcome questionable. A different PC demands a different approach or something else in the situation to change to make the additional roll (if needed) relevant.

Actually, after reading his article, I didn't feel like there was much there not already covered in the PHB. Ability scores are "key", skills are added if they apply to the task.

 

[robus]

Actually, after reading his article, I didn't feel like there was much there not already covered in the PHB. Ability scores are "key", skills are added if they apply to the task.

And yet there seems to be lots of confusion for some people. Certainly WotC doesn’t encourage that interpretation in their adventures when practically every suggested ability check is qualified with a skill...

The biggest problem WotC has is that while there’s plenty of good and useful information in the core books it is generally presented in such a way as to make that information confusing at best or buried under a bunch of unrelated stuff at worst.