D&D 5E The skill system is one dimensional.

[DEFCON 1]

Are you saying that if the DM wants to use particular obstacles and the PC, via their build choices, imply that they don't, the DM should just roll over and do what the players want? Because that's what it sounds like.

I think DMs are going to do it regardless, whether they want to or not.

If a DM ordinarily likes have chasms and pit traps in their dungeons for challenges, but every single PC in the group can fly... then that essentially eliminates chasms and pit traps as possible challenges (unless the DM comes up with scenarios where flying doesn't work.)

Now on occasion I think the DM WILL decide to put in the occasional chasm and formulate it in such a way that the party won't all be able to use their flying to get past it... but those will be one-off scenarios in the story. Other than that one occasional time... chasms and pit traps are otherwise off the table and the DM knows it. So they just won't bother with them. Not because they are rolling over to player choice, but just because there's no point in including them since they aren't actually an obstacle any more.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Are we asking WotC to do something? I thought we were just discussing alternate skill systems and how they might be better or worse for different playstyles.

If you think your two points are always 100% completely separate... that's your right. But I don't think either of us truly believes that.

I have a sneaking suspicion that people don't post here just to hear themselves and others talk... but that they occasionally post in hopes their views get acknowledged by WotC and are put within the game itself. LOL.

 

[LordEntrails]

I do NOT want a detailed skill system. Heck, I would be totally happy to have players describe a handful of things they are good at ("I'm good at cooking" "Bob is an experienced outdoorsman" "Knows how to craft weapons" "Knows herbal medicines and taking care of the injured") and then the DM just adjudicate based on the situation they describe and the actions the player take. When needed, throw in a roll modified by the DM's design and the characters save for a relevant ability.

But rolls only when needed and not to be used as a pass/fail but more for a degree of success. Keep things moving, keep things fun and creative.

 

[Pedantic]

If you think your two points are always 100% completely separate... that's your right. But I don't think either of us truly believes that.

I have a sneaking suspicion that people don't post here just to hear themselves and others talk... but that they occasionally post in hopes their views get acknowledged by WotC and are put within the game itself. LOL.

Occasionally I let myself indulge in the hope I'll change someone's mind or influence their opinions in some meaningful way. It's a fun fantasy.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Here's where my sympathies probably lean closer to the skill challenge proponents. The point isn't that the DM should say yes, it's that the DM should not have a choice. Your move does what it says it does, and the DM's job is to update the board state with the new information you've provided.

Sure. Basically the 'Neutral Referee' stance for the DM if I'm getting what you're saying? I get it, and oftentimes think that stance works well. But for me, I'm just not a proponent of the 'Neutral Referee' stance 100% of the time-- I like giving DMs more freedom to make decisions that they think are right in the moment rather than be beholden to some outside source... because my belief is that it ultimately leads to more creativity on their end as well. But that's just my personal take.

 

[Micah Sweet]

less is more if they do this. I'd like to see some axis that gives certain classes benefits on certain categories of skill checks. I'd like to see an axis of skills that are considered Artisinal and no PC can ever master or put on thier character sheet because they don't stay home and do it full time. I'd like to see an axis of anyone can do this untrained at a basic to intermediate level because everyone should have some knowledge or experience in things like that just growing up and existing. But it's got to be kept simple or it just becomes another nightmare like the current spell lists.

In what way are the current spell lists a nightmare? The only real problems I see are the lack of limits and uncertainty on the part of casters, not in what spells they can cast.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Occasionally I let myself indulge in the hope I'll change someone's mind or influence their opinions in some meaningful way. It's a fun fantasy.

I've been posting to EN World for over 20 years trying to convince people that they should take improv classes because it changes the way you look at roleplaying games. I do not believe I've been 100% successful as of yet.

 

[Micah Sweet]

sounds like you cannot do those two things then either…

Excellent point. Have you tried talking to your DM?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think it depends on how one is coming at the challenges.

If you want to be a Hawkeye and spot details other miss so you go all-in on Perception... getting yourself like a +12 with always-on Advantage... that's fine in of itself. But what about now all of these checks the DM would have ordinarily been putting in front of you and the party that would have been DC 10? You are making this checks all the time. Every time. Is THAT supposed to be "fun"? Because at that point having a high Perception is essentially unnecessary because there's never a check that is in question. We have effectively removed all things that could be perceived under a certain level-- remove all manner of challenges under a certain level.

If you do that... if you are stripping the game of all manner of challenges under a certain level... why else would one think you would do that other than you just don't want to be challenged by those anymore? You don't want to have "easy things" put in front of you, because you always will succeed. So why would the DM even mention these things if there was no chance of failure? Do DMs ever let the players know "You were successful in putting on your armor this morning." No. Of course not. Because there was never any chance of NOT doing that, so there's no point in talking about it. If you always succeed on standard Perception stuff, then the DM will past that onto you through normal party information distribution and most likely never even bother telling you that it was because you had "high Perception". "High Perception" becomes so rote that it ceases to be much of anything.

The only time the DM will question you as the high-Perception PC about Perception things is when you still have a chance of failure even with the high-Perception stuff. Because that's the only time when something is in question. If nothing is in question, then it's not going to be talked about as a challenge. And if it's not a challenge, then it'll just be casual conversation information the DM will pass on to you. And speaking personally... non-challenges to me are not as much fun as challenges to play. And that's why having extremely high skill modifiers or "always succeed" levels is the removal of fun, rather than the gain of it. But you might feel differently, and that's cool.

I've never run a 5e game without someone having a crazy high passive Perception. At a certain point you just want to ask, "Do you just want to never ever fail at noticing anything about your environment? Like, ever? No hidden things?".

 

[DEFCON 1]

I've never run a 5e game without someone having a crazy high passive Perception. At a certain point you just want to ask, "Do you just want to never ever fail at noticing anything about your environment? Like, ever? No hidden things?".

No doubt!

And to me as a DM, the downside of having that player is that I oftentimes feel like I should make up things for them to spot due to their massively high Perception just so it feels to the player like it got some actual use. Because otherwise-- since the high-Perception player would just pass on the information to the rest of the group anyway-- any descriptions I give will just include any secretive stuff to the entire table to begin with. Which means the entire party hears it and the high-Perception player doesn't really get a feeling of being the special one.

I mean, I could give general descriptions to the table and then pull the high-Perception person aside and give them the extra-secret stuff to then pass on to the rest of the group... but after like the first three times of doing that the novelty has worn off. And I suspect that's true with almost all characters that have a overly high ability or feature. It's cool to begin with... but then just becomes rote. It's why I think most players at the end of the day would probably find themselves more engaged with all parts of the game if their abilities were more spread out rather than all-in on a single one. But I could be wrong about that.