D&D 5E A New Thought About Skills

[pming]

Hiya!

Any of your alternatives would work just fine, I'd wager.

That said...in my game I simply account that "Proficiency" means a character is better/more knowledgeable than one without. This has NOTHING to do with chance of success...only the definition of what that success (or failure) entails. Let me 'splain. No, would take to long. Let me sum up...

A character WITH Proficiency is just 'better' at something. Lets use ye old Perception. A Fighter with a Wisdom of 12 and NO Proficiency, at 1st level, has +1. A Cleric with a Wisdom of 18 and NO Proficiency, at 1st level, as a +4. No harm, no foul in this case...the Cleric will succeed a slight bit more. Lets assume both SUCCEED at a test:

DM: Ok, Fighter and Cleric, you both slow down your walk then stop, looking at each other, then the corridor in front of you. Something just seems off about the way the stonework is shaped, or the texture, or colour of the stones seems out of place for some reason. Maybe it's less cobwebs than the other corridors, or maybe something else.

Neither PC has any advantage over the other in terms of "definition of success". Now, lets move on. Lets now assume that the Fighter DOES have Proficiency, but the Cleric does not. Lets once again assume both SUCCEED at the test:

DM: Cleric, something about this corridor seems to get your attention. You can't quiet put your finger on it. Fighter, you stop with the Cleric. You notice that this corridor has less cobwebs and even dirt on the floor, and the flagstones are of a different type of stone, or maybe they are less-worn from being walked on, you can't be certain. The walls seem mostly the same, as does the ceiling, at least in regards to the rest of the corridor you've all be walking down.

That's how I play it. A character without Proficiency, who SUCCEEDS, will succeed with the BARE MINIMUM needed to be considered a success. Those who do have Proficiency, who FAIL, will sometimes get a hint, but those that SUCCEED will do so with much greater accuracy and "effect" than others. In my game, someone rolling a 12 and succeeding, and someone rolling a 24 and succeeding...well, whichever one has Proficiency does it 'best'; if the 12 guy was the one with Prof, he does it expertly...the guy with the 24, does it "as well as could be expected from someone untrained" (which, mind you, with a roll of 24 is still going to be a pretty sweet success...but the skilled guy with a 12 will do just as well).

Also, as a side note, I use the Ability in question for the Skill as a "most of the time" stat...but they are never an "always" stat. (e.g., Athletics is STR...but only 'usually'; if DEX makes more sense, I use that...if INT makes more sense, I use that, if CHA makes more sense, I use that...etc; it's ALWAYS SITUATIONAL, but usually the default is 'good enough').

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

One way of making proficiency valuable is to simply disallow some checks to non-proficient characters. This is particularly appropriate for tool proficiency. For example, if your character is not proficient in Thief's Tools then you can't open a lock. At all.

I think that proficiency indicates some formal training. A character with a high DEX would be able to use Woodworker's Tools to make a piece of furniture, but they wouldn't be able to tell you technical terms like "dovetail joint". They also would have no idea about any history or lore, and couldn't estimate the value of any pieces of furniture. Their piece of furniture would probably be pretty ugly.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

Oops. I added the proficiency bonus on top of that...

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

Yep , but it would be the proposed expertise, so a maximum of +5 instead of +6 with the existing expertise.

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....

That's why I like this proposed version of proficiency and expertise. Better stats still have an impact, just not as much as before. And the idea of proficiency and expertise meaning the same thing across the board.

Which leads me to even more madness...

What about AC?

Right now you can be proficient or non-proficient in armor, but it doesn't mean anything resembling proficiency elsewhere. Why? Because you don't use your proficiency bonus of course.

How about this?

Unarmored
Non-Proficient: AC = 10
Proficient: AC = 10 + proficiency bonus
Expert: AC = 10 + proficiency bonus + ability modifier

This allows somebody to train to be better at defense and remain unarmored. Unarmored defense would be expertise, but you could pick your ability modifier instead of being "stuck" with Dexterity.

With armor:

AC = 10 + armor bonus (if no proficiency)
AC = 10 + proficiency bonus + armor bonus (proficient)
AC = 10 + proficiency bonus + ability modifier + armor bonus (expertise)

Armor would have a bonus of +1 to +5, and the maximum Dexterity modifier is the opposite (Plate = +5, no DEX modifier).

So the range of AC would be 10 to 21 not including a shield.

Aside from consistency, it means that as you get better, your AC improves. Although this is already addressed to some degree by increasing hit points as you gain levels, I'm OK with the idea of the double-dip here.

It also increases the base AC by the proficiency bonus for unarmored (although you could require a proficiency in "unarmored" to gain that).

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Hiya!

Any of your alternatives would work just fine, I'd wager.

That said...in my game I simply account that "Proficiency" means a character is better/more knowledgeable than one without. This has NOTHING to do with chance of success...only the definition of what that success (or failure) entails. Let me 'splain. No, would take to long. Let me sum up...

A character WITH Proficiency is just 'better' at something. Lets use ye old Perception. A Fighter with a Wisdom of 12 and NO Proficiency, at 1st level, has +1. A Cleric with a Wisdom of 18 and NO Proficiency, at 1st level, as a +4. No harm, no foul in this case...the Cleric will succeed a slight bit more. Lets assume both SUCCEED at a test:

DM: Ok, Fighter and Cleric, you both slow down your walk then stop, looking at each other, then the corridor in front of you. Something just seems off about the way the stonework is shaped, or the texture, or colour of the stones seems out of place for some reason. Maybe it's less cobwebs than the other corridors, or maybe something else.

Neither PC has any advantage over the other in terms of "definition of success". Now, lets move on. Lets now assume that the Fighter DOES have Proficiency, but the Cleric does not. Lets once again assume both SUCCEED at the test:

DM: Cleric, something about this corridor seems to get your attention. You can't quiet put your finger on it. Fighter, you stop with the Cleric. You notice that this corridor has less cobwebs and even dirt on the floor, and the flagstones are of a different type of stone, or maybe they are less-worn from being walked on, you can't be certain. The walls seem mostly the same, as does the ceiling, at least in regards to the rest of the corridor you've all be walking down.

That's how I play it. A character without Proficiency, who SUCCEEDS, will succeed with the BARE MINIMUM needed to be considered a success. Those who do have Proficiency, who FAIL, will sometimes get a hint, but those that SUCCEED will do so with much greater accuracy and "effect" than others. In my game, someone rolling a 12 and succeeding, and someone rolling a 24 and succeeding...well, whichever one has Proficiency does it 'best'; if the 12 guy was the one with Prof, he does it expertly...the guy with the 24, does it "as well as could be expected from someone untrained" (which, mind you, with a roll of 24 is still going to be a pretty sweet success...but the skilled guy with a 12 will do just as well).

Also, as a side note, I use the Ability in question for the Skill as a "most of the time" stat...but they are never an "always" stat. (e.g., Athletics is STR...but only 'usually'; if DEX makes more sense, I use that...if INT makes more sense, I use that, if CHA makes more sense, I use that...etc; it's ALWAYS SITUATIONAL, but usually the default is 'good enough').

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Love it. Yes, I do address things similarly, although a lot of time, success is just success. Did I climb the wall? Did I jump over the pit? Circumstances might say, yes, but you landed prone, but I don't think that you should always land prone if you don't have proficiency.

And I also agree that different abilities should apply, and that was the original direction I was heading by specifically identifying multiple abilities, but it didn't quite open it up as much as I wanted to.

One way of making proficiency valuable is to simply disallow some checks to non-proficient characters. This is particularly appropriate for tool proficiency. For example, if your character is not proficient in Thief's Tools then you can't open a lock. At all.

I think that proficiency indicates some formal training. A character with a high DEX would be able to use Woodworker's Tools to make a piece of furniture, but they wouldn't be able to tell you technical terms like "dovetail joint". They also would have no idea about any history or lore, and couldn't estimate the value of any pieces of furniture. Their piece of furniture would probably be pretty ugly.

I've tried going this route. In addition to being tough to maintain all the time, I also think it can't always apply. For example, somebody proficient in Athletics, and somebody not. Or Intimidation, Perception, Persuasion, etc.

In general, I settled on anything with a DC of 21 or higher requires proficiency to attempt. And as I noted, I increased DCs by 5 across the board. This provides a nice breakpoint, while still allowing the majority of things that are probably attempted to have at least a chance.

But with this new approach, it's less than a problem, and to tie into [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION]'s post the numbers are a closer match to proficiency/expertise. So the number and the training correlate better.

Right now I only have a few things that require training. Swimming (part of Athletics), literacy (part of Intelligence), and languages themselves. Without training in swimming, the best you can do is try to keep yourself afloat.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I found another one...Saving Throws!

We've discussed these elsewhere, and the solution I liked best to keep them from being too far apart was to apply 1/2 your proficiency modifier to the saving throws that you don't have proficiency.

So how does it work with this approach?

Non-proficient: Ability modifier
Proficient: Proficiency bonus or ability modifier, whichever is greater.

If we stop there, then the differential at 17th level is from +0 (for the lowest ability score) to +6. That's quite a bit better than the +0 to +11 spread now.

However, it also cuts most saves in half. So we might want to look at reducing save DCs.

Save DC at 17th level = 19 (8 + 6 + 5). So instead of a +11 at 17th level you'd be a +6 on your saving throw.

Another option, though, is to grant proficiency to all saving throws and expertise for the ones granted by your class.

In that case I'd probably recommend bumping the saving throws up by at least 2. That is, the save DC is 10 + proficiency bonus + ability modifier. On the other hand I like this. Why? Consistency again, it's the same formula as your AC.

The advantage of this second approach is it means that all saving throws are tied to your skill level.

 

[GMMichael]

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.

Contradicting yourself here: if a natural talent doesn't make you better at something, then your high ability modifier shouldn't be able to compete with someone else's high proficiency bonus.

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.

Do not look at the man behind the curtain! Some (many?) games have already put combat where it belongs: in the skills list.

 

[Tony Vargas]

However, it also cuts most saves in half. So we might want to look at reducing save DCs.

The current formula adds both caster stat and proficiency, the obvious thing to do would be to just add the higher of the two.

Same could go for DEX to AC in light or medium armor.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Contradicting yourself here: if a natural talent doesn't make you better at something, then your high ability modifier shouldn't be able to compete with someone else's high proficiency bonus.

Oops, I did. As I was working on it, it occurred to me that both could apply, but without stacking them.

In general, the idea is that proficiency is proficiency. But maintaining the option for the ability modifier seems to be a good compromise, particularly in light of the way all of this will interact with the other rules.

For monsters, it's easy to say that most of them just have expertise in their natural attacks, and thus add both. Even for something like orcs I'm more or less OK with this, as they are a warlike race that live a life of strife, so that works too. Not sure which monsters I'd consider changing.

But that would mean that with no proficiency, you'd be at a +0. In general I'm OK with that in concept, but it does weaken the PCs quite a bit, I think. I also want to find a better "balance" that doesn't completely eliminate the benefit of good abilities scores, so I'm kind of on the fence.

With the standard array, at 1st level there will be only one stat that gives you a better than +2 bonus. And that happens to be your Prime Requisite for the majority of characters. Even when rolling characters, that will be the highest as well.

A second ability, has the +2 bonus. Two have a +1.

So the question is, if you have two untrained people, would somebody with natural talent be better? I think that's a reasonable Yes.

The next question is, could somebody with natural talent be as good or better than somebody with proficiency? I'd say maybe.

We could set a limit - without proficiency the highest modifier you can have is a +1. That's something that appeals to me, because I'd kind of like to scale back the bonuses a bit. But it adds complexity that really doesn't have a lot of impact.

I've noted in other threads that a +1 or +2 isn't as significant bonus in 5e as in the past, so I'm OK with the idea that your primary ability could be 1 point better than proficiency (potentially 2 at the level you gain an ASI, but then proficiency gains a point the next level).

As I've been fleshing out the concept, the idea that non-proficient - proficient - expert sets up a consistent tiered mechanic that I really like. Thinking about it, I also like the maximum +1 for non-proficient abilities.

Do not look at the man behind the curtain! Some (many?) games have already put combat where it belongs: in the skills list.[/QUOTE]

Yep.

 

[Sadras]

Skills: I like your Non-proficient, Proficient, Expertise idea.
Saving Throws: Tony suggested we reduced save DC's by not including either the proficiency or the ability mod in the DC, which works.

Now we move to Combat, specifically AC, which I'm worried about -
Expertise in Defense (Armoured or Unarmoured) might make it a Proficiency Tax. I would ignore Expertise in combat - that level of detail is already touched on through Feats, Fighting Styles and Class Features. So preferably one should not allow Expertise as well as the above.

Combat Rolls - I like using either your proficiency on attack rolls. This might assist in the max/min and dumping of stats.
The question I have now is, will stats be at all important anymore since proficiency will now be the standard?

 

[Krachek]

You can use the rule
Proficiency bonus + stat bonus OR proficiency bonus +2 whichever is higher.
You wont beat a trained character in its main stat, but any character can have a decent skill bonus.

So a 8 int character can be trained in history and have a +4 bonus at level 1.
He know the dates, the places and names, but a bit like a parrot, he just don't make the same links the wizard does.