D&D 5E A New Thought About Skills

[Ilbranteloth]

OK, as an update, since we've had some time to discuss it, this is the new idea as it currently stands. I've left the original post below:

Untrained = Ability modifier, with a maximum of +1
Proficiency = The higher of proficiency bonus or ability modifier
Expertise = Proficiency bonus + ability modifier

Variation: Untrained = Ability modifier, a maximum of Proficiency modifier -1.

The idea is that this covers all proficiency and expertise. Skills, combat, armor, and saving throws.

For saving throws, if you want all saving throws to scale with level, I would recommend that all characters have proficiency in all saving throws, and expertise in the two that their class gives them.

The biggest challenge, however, is armor.
The easiest fix is to set a max proficiency bonus and max DEX bonus for each armor type so it doesn't alter it at all. But it also gives you the opportunity to have AC scale a bit with level should you want that.

It does, though, give you a different approach to unarmored AC. Allowing you to create proficiency and expertise (probably a feat) Unarmored Defense, so you can use your skill (proficiency) to increase your unarmored AC.

The existing class abilities can be rewritten as: Add your proficiency bonus and the ability modifier of your choice (Constitution for barbarian, etc.).

This approach works really, really well in my campaign, because although armor provides less AC protection, it also provides resistance against one or more damage types. So you can have a better AC while being unarmored, but you don't get the benefit of armor itself.

--
Original post:
So, doing my usual tweaking, and stuck at one particular point.

I have a love/hate relationship with the way skills are tied to an ability.

Sure, most of them it makes perfect sense that a given ability will be the primary one for a given skill. In many cases there's a second, or maybe a third, that makes sense. But because they are so tied to abilities, it has the effect of often limiting or pigeon-holing certain classes to certain skills (beyond the selections they get at first level).

Our group is not an optimizing group, but I see plenty of complaints online that a certain combination is "unplayable" because their bonus is on the wrong ability, or whatever. And comments like, "there's no point in a fighter with a Wisdom score higher than their Strength because the cleric will still be better at Perception and always find things first.

The other issue I've had is the really wide range of skill somebody can have. Ignore negative scores, you still go from +0 with no proficiency or modifiers, up to a potential +17 with expertise at 17th level and a +5 modifier.

Combat ability, on the other hand, is limited to a potential +11 (no expertise option), with some exceptions that grant an additional +1 or +2, and maybe some of those stack. So maybe it's not that different.

Anyway, those are some of the thoughts. Then something came to mind:

Having a natural talent (high ability score) doesn't generally make you better at something, it really makes it easier for you to learn something. Now since training and learning aren't really a thing in the game, that aspect doesn't come into play, but it could, perhaps, in the downtime portion of the game. More importantly, we can also alter the way skills function at the same time, making it less important to focus on your best abilities.

Radical Change: An ability check = d20 + your ability modifier or your proficiency bonus.

Does this make sense? Well, let's say you want to learn to play a song on piano or guitar. You might have a high ability score, making it possible to learn it faster or easier than somebody else. But once you both know how to play it, you just play it. That is, proficiency by learning isn't really any different than proficiency by talent.

In other words, you might have a +2 bonus to Intelligence, but a person who purchases that +2 bonus through education and training has the same +2 bonus. Yes, adding the two would be like the person with the higher intelligence learning more, but the game caps learning at proficiency unless you have a special ability that allows you to gain expertise. This is just setting a different cap.

First, this reigns in the upper level of abilities to a maximum of +12. But more importantly, it means that the character in the party with a 10 Wisdom can choose to purchase Perception and be as good as the character with a 15 Wisdom that doesn't have proficiency.

Is this fair? Well, it means that the person with the 15 Wisdom has a proficiency open that they don't have to spend on Perception and can get an extra skill.

I'm sure there are a lot of folks that won't like this approach, but I think it opens up a lot of options that are gone as a result of the current ability/skill connection, that even allowing alternate abilities doesn't entirely resolve.

It also means that in terms of skill, a character with a +3 ability modifier has the same amount of skill as a 5th level character with proficiency. A +4 equals a 9th level character with proficiency, and a +5 equals a 13th level character with proficiency.

Currently, a person with a +3 modifier at 1st level is the equivalent as a 13th level character with proficiency, and if you have expertise, you are better than a 20th level character with expertise (assuming no modifiers for the 20th level character).

I think it also increases the value of expertise while reigning it in at the same time, since a rogue can choose expertise in Perception, for example, and be the equivalent as a character with an 18 Wisdom or a 9th level character with proficiency. Now, a character with a 16 Wisdom and proficiency is still 1 point ahead of the character with expertise until 5th level, and that's assuming that the character doesn't increase their Wisdom.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Already have another thought, haven't decided which I like better.

Instead of Expertise being double your proficiency bonus, if using my proposed system, expertise could be your proficiency bonus + your ability modifier.

Note that in my campaign you have the ability to gain expertise as an ASI. So more than just a few people might have expertise. This has the advantage of taking into account that those with a higher ability score can exceed the capabilities of one that doesn't.

Correction: In my campaign you can gain a +1 to an ability score and learn a new skill, armor, or weapon; or
You can learn a feat; or
You can gain expertise in an existing skill.

I don't have two-point ASIs. And feats aren't quite the same either.

But the important thing in the discussion is that it is possible to gain expertise in my campaign...

 

[Satyrn]

I can see this being worth a try.

 

[Satyrn]

Already have another thought, haven't decided which I like better.

Instead of Expertise being double your proficiency bonus, if using my proposed system, expertise could be your proficiency bonus + your ability modifier.

Note that in my campaign you have the ability to gain expertise and a +1 to an ability score as an ASI. So more than just a few people might have expertise. This has the advantage of taking into account that those with a higher ability score can exceed the capabilities of one that doesn't.

I don't care for this, though. It will make the value of expertise too swingy.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I don't care for this, though. It will make the value of expertise too swingy.

I'm torn.

On the one hand, going with expertise being double your proficiency modifier keeps the existing rule (minus adding your ability modifier), and keeps it simple. But it also means that everybody with expertise is the same.

But the main reason I like using the ability modifier for expertise is that only somebody who has an above average ability can become an expert in that skill.

Actually, thinking about it, since ability modifiers in this system don't affect the use of a skill, I think it has to be the ability modifier for expertise. Why? Because by removing the ability modifier out of the equation, anybody can be an expert.

In other words, if an "expert" is defined as somebody with up to a +12 modifier for the skill (by doubling the proficiency bonus), then a character with a 3 in that ability could still be an expert. That sounds absurd to me.

Having a higher ability score becomes a gate to gain expertise. That is, I can train for 10 hours a day, every day, for 5 years, and I still won't beat Usain Bolt in a sprint. Even if he's having a bad day. I can become proficient in sprinting, but not an expert.

The more I think about it the more I like it. A person with a higher ability score can exceed the ability of somebody who doesn't. But even with a high ability score, becoming an expert requires more than just basic training. So either a class ability that allows you to gain expertise, or using your ASI.

Furthermore, even among experts, there are those that are more expert (a 16 vs 18 expert).

So no, now that I think it through more, I'm not torn.

Proficiency = d20 + proficiency bonus
Expertise = d20 + proficiency bonus + ability modifier

 

[Satyrn]

I like your reasoning. I like that you know what the effect will be.

I'm sold.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Already have another thought, haven't decided which I like better.

Instead of Expertise being double your proficiency bonus, if using my proposed system, expertise could be your proficiency bonus + your ability modifier.

That has a certain elegance.

What it sounds like is that BA just isn't B enough for you. No?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

That has a certain elegance.

What it sounds like is that BA just isn't B enough for you. No?

Yeah, I think that's part of it too. And often too easy (although I did bump up DCs by 5 across the board, so I'll have to reconsider that now.

Initially, it was just some recent posts that are closely related to optimized characters, and the fact that folks that are really into optimization can't seem to conceive that there are other "valid" options. As you know, the value of a high ability score has increased over the different editions of the game.

I also have a bit of an issue with 20th level cap and how it relates. That is, nobody can theoretically be better at something than 20th level, except for a 1st level character with Expertise. That seems a bit absurd. Of course that can't touch a 20th level character with expertise, but the spread there seems a bit much to me.

It also ties into how I handle ability checks for non-proficient skills. Normally, most ability (skill) checks in my campaign are passive. I consider both the passive score (things below that are automatic) and their capability (20 + their skill modifier). In most circumstances that's all I need to come up with a reasonable description as to what happens.

In the times when I need to have them roll for a skill, failure is different. I wouldn't have them roll if it's outside their capability, so any time they're rolling is almost always related to how long it will take to succeed. Of course, if there are specific risks to failure, they come into play as well.

On the other hand, somebody who is not proficient generally gets to roll once. And that's a reflection on the fact that they aren't trained in that skill. They can keep trying, but most of the time, they just aren't going to get it.

I just thought of a middle ground where proficiency is your proficiency bonus or your ability modifier, whichever is higher. This becomes more important when you consider you have to have proficiency in something before you can gain expertise (either the bard/rogue ability or my variation).

But it also came about as I started thinking about combat. Despite WotC official stance, an attack roll is an ability (skill) check. The mechanic is identical - d20 + ability modifier + proficiency bonus if proficient. What it lacks is the possibility of expertise. But overall I think expertise would be too high.

So if I move to proficiency bonus or ability modifier for combat too, it has a very large effect. If I go with "whichever is higher" then it has less of an impact on combat, but it does reign things in a bit. But it also opens the door for adding expertise to combat, since it only brings the math back to the RAW. I like this a lot, since it allows something akin to the old weapon specialization. Although I'd probably tie it to the Fighting Styles (which are also feats in my campaign).

So you can be non-skilled, but have a better chance at success due to raw talent, but really only one chance in most cases:

Unskilled = d20 + ability modifier (or a range of -5 to +5)

You can be skilled, and in some cases a little more skilled than others:

Proficient = d20 + proficiency bonus or ability modifier, whichever is higher (a range of +2 to +6)

or an expert, and better than most others:

Expert = d20 + proficiency bonus and ability modifier. (a range of +2 to +11)

With the standard array/point buy limiting folks to a 17 on their best ability at 1st level, for those that optimize it means that you could only be better at 1st level than a person with proficiency if that skill was not related to their best ability. Otherwise, a person with proficiency would always be equal to or a little better than the other characters.

With randomly rolled characters, if you allow up to a 20 with racial modifiers, there will be a few that are better than proficient characters.

And really, if we're lamenting that these ranges are too low, that is, the math won't work without the two added together, we can always increase the proficiency bonus to compensate. If proficiency started at +3 instead of +2, with the same progression, then it would further differentiate skilled from non-skilled, but be within the existing math.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, I think that's part of it too....

I also have a bit of an issue with 20th level cap and how it relates. That is, nobody can theoretically be better at something than 20th level, except for a 1st level character with Expertise.

1st level with Expertise is 'only' +4 from doubled proficiency, vs +6 at 20th. But, yeah, level scaling in 5e is mostly about spells & hps/damage.

But it also came about as I started thinking about combat. Despite WotC official stance, an attack roll is an ability (skill) check. The mechanic is identical - d20 + ability modifier + proficiency bonus if proficient. What it lacks is the possibility of expertise. But overall I think expertise would be too high.

If Fighters had Expertise at fighting, that'd certainly put them over the top of the whole 'best at fighting' thing.

And really, if we're lamenting that these ranges are too low, that is, the math won't work without the two added together, we can always increase the proficiency bonus to compensate. If proficiency started at +3 instead of +2, with the same progression, then it would further differentiate skilled from non-skilled, but be within the existing math.

You could do away with expertise, and instead have proficiency go from +3 at first level to +12 at 20th, but replace rather than stack with the stat bonus. There should probably be some way in which the stat is still relevant, though, even for those with proficiency....

 

[Croesus]

There should probably be some way in which the stat is still relevant, though, even for those with proficiency....

One possibility is to have skill bonuses = proficiency bonus (if proficient) + half stat mod (rounded down). Expertise could then be proficiency bonus + full stat mod.

Example, 1st level rogue with 18 Dexterity:
Stealth = +2 (untrained)
Stealth = +4 (trained)
Stealth = +6 (expertise)

I love 5E, but I believe giving +1 for every 2 points a stat is above 10 makes stats the primary reason bounded accuracy seems to have a bit too much range.