D&D 5E Companion thread to Survivor:Proficiencies

[Swarmkeeper]

As for insight, I don't use it very often because I won't let it be a lie detector or a give us a clue skill, and it's useless otherwise. If they use insight and don't pick up on any body language that would give away if the NPC is lying, was that a failed roll or the person was telling the truth? They can't tell, so why use it?

Player: "As my friend, Facey McFacerson, talks with the tavern bouncer, I'm watching and listening for any signs that might help us get in her good favor"
DM: "Ok, roll Wisdom(Insight), DC 15. Succeed and I tell you what you glean. Fail and she is not readable to you at this time."
Player: [rolls] "Shoot, 11"
DM: "She's playing her role as bouncer very well - hard to tell what makes her tick."

From there, the player is welcome to have their PC think anything they want to have them think. The roll - and the transparency of the difficulty and stakes - gives away nothing nor requires the player to play their character any certain way. The Wis(Insight) ability was fine here - it's the dice that failed the player. Works for our table, anyway.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I do like how 5e does proficiencies for the most part. I think there should be a few more of them, though. What I don't do at all are passives. I dislike the concept of passives, because a person isn't going to always be average when something important happens.

It's for making things easy to use. You could just as easily argue that having a single, static bonus to AC from armor, shield, Dexterity, etc. makes no sense--characters should be able to fumble a block or accidentally expose a weakness, thus making it easier for the enemy to land a blow.

But, if you need a physical intuition for accepting it, it's literally just Take 10. You use Take 10 when the action can be repeated at least a few times and an average result is reasonable. It may not be the case that every individual effort is average, but continuous minor efforts will (by the central limit theorem) trend ever closer to the average result. You aren't--or shouldn't be--using passive perception for something the party could only see momentarily. That's what a roll is for.

As for insight, I don't use it very often because I won't let it be a lie detector or a give us a clue skill, and it's useless otherwise. If they use insight and don't pick up on any body language that would give away if the NPC is lying, was that a failed roll or the person was telling the truth? They can't tell, so why use it?

This problem is no different from Perception--yet presumably you still use it as an active skill. Going further than @Swarmkeeper did with their example, Insight can be useful for achieving not just "clues" but social understanding. Showing you care, for example, generally requires sensitivity and patience. Delivering an armor-piercing question (or response) in a way that really lands. Calling attention to someone else's behavior in a way that encourages them to change for the better. Etc. Anything that is a non-trivial "show understanding of another person" can be an Insight check, if a check feels warranted.

This is one of the reasons I always made room for Insight on the Paladin characters I would play in 4e. If you're going to commit yourself to drawing out the best in everyone, even your opponents, you need to be able to see the best in everyone, and to see how you can draw it out.

 

[Maxperson]

It's for making things easy to use. You could just as easily argue that having a single, static bonus to AC from armor, shield, Dexterity, etc. makes no sense--characters should be able to fumble a block or accidentally expose a weakness, thus making it easier for the enemy to land a blow.

But, if you need a physical intuition for accepting it, it's literally just Take 10. You use Take 10 when the action can be repeated at least a few times and an average result is reasonable. It may not be the case that every individual effort is average, but continuous minor efforts will (by the central limit theorem) trend ever closer to the average result. You aren't--or shouldn't be--using passive perception for something the party could only see momentarily. That's what a roll is for.

I was never fond of taking 10, either. If an average roll can succeed, I just describe a success after the player describes what his PC is doing. I'm not going to waste time asking for a roll or making the player tell me that he's taking 10.

If the outcome is in doubt and there is a meaningful consequence for failure, then per RAW a roll is called for. That rule alone invalidates all passive perception checks that fail, could possibly succeed with a roll, and have meaningful consequences for failure.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I was never fond of taking 10, either. If an average roll can succeed, I just describe a success after the player describes what his PC is doing. I'm not going to waste time asking for a roll or making the player tell me that he's taking 10.

If the outcome is in doubt and there is a meaningful consequence for failure, then per RAW a roll is called for. That rule alone invalidates all passive perception checks that fail, could possibly succeed with a roll, and have meaningful consequences for failure.

And for all the many, many, many, MANY times where it would be useful to know whether people are likely or unlikely to notice something casually?

Because that's the whole point. Casual observation. You describe it as "invalidated," but that's not what it's for. It's for (as an example) picking up on a room's shape being different the second time they enter it, or a woman's dress changing color, or (as is often done with online videos nowadays) inattentional blindness as demonstrated by missing the fact that a person in a gorilla suit walks across the stage or, in a more interesting example, large portions of both the stage and the characters' dress/items change while just out of view.

It's not a question of "are there interesting consequences for success vs. failure" any more than those signs that say "you must be this tall to ride this ride" are about interesting consequences for success vs failure. It's about having a quick-and-easy option to call on when you want to know simple first impressions and what might catch the characters' eyes. If they wish to examine more closely--and usually, they should!--then you would never even consider using passive perception for that purpose. But for the purpose of getting them a quick, useful summary right now, without faffing about, without the time wasted on rolling dice for everyone in the party and checking that against DCs etc. etc., it serves an extremely valuable function.

 

[JoeyD473]

5eSurvivor Thread Proficiencies

Proficiencies are the Skills, Tools and Vehicles that a character has some aptitude in using, and they do a lot of work in the non-combat parts of the game.
18 Skills, 26 tools (including musical instruments and gaming set) and 2 vehicle aptitudes, giving us a manageable 46 items to vote on.

So lets discuss

• do you like the way 5e does proficiencies?
• are certain Skills just too uberpowerful? (Perception, Athletics?),
• which Proficiencies are useless? (Weavers kit, History?),
• why is there no Profession/Craft skill?
• just what is the purpose of Insight?

As for me I would like Perception to become entirely passive and for its active part to be taken over by Investigate. I also don’t like Insight not because its a lie detector but that it becomes the “ask the DM to give us a clue”, which to me is naff. And yes I do think there should be a Profession/Artisan skill added to allow PCs to do stuff besides adventuring

5e proficiencies are OK. I prefer the 3x and pathfinder 2 systems
Perception is probably the most OP skill
I don' t think there are any useless proficiecies but the skills, Athletics, Acrobatics, stealth Perception etc. are normally more useful then tool proficiencies (with maybe the exception of thieves tools)
I thought that teh tool proficiencies were the profession/craft skills
I use perception more as a visual. I see the the thing, whether it is the thing that is hiding, countering the stealth skill or to notice something out of place. Insight is more social. Insight allows you to "read between the lines", notice someone is deceiving you etc.

I ate passive perception. my next campaign I am eliminating passive perception and passive insight

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Man, what's with the History hate? I'd figured it would be one of those "skates through to the end by being inoffensive," but it's been massively dogpiled and I can't figure out why.

 

[The Glen]

The two frontrunners are calligraphy and medicine. The handwriting war has begun

 

[CleverNickName]

Huh. Medicine sure has has taken a beating in the last couple days. (Not at all unexpected, just a bit earlier than I thought.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Huh. Medicine sure has has taken a beating in the last couple days. (Not at all unexpected, just a bit earlier than I thought.)

Frankly, I'd been expecting it for a while, but then again I also expected History to not evaporate nigh-instantly.

Personally, I think I would have split this into something like
Skills (easy, that's already a defined list)
"Adventuring" tools (e.g. Thieves' tools, medicine kit, alchemy kit, vehicles, etc.)
"Craftsman" tools (e.g. blacksmith, potter, painter, etc.)

The only real issue would be that the line between "craftsman" and "adventuring" is fuzzy as heck. Some things are obvious, but many are not. E.g. vehicles and thieves' tools are pretty clearly "adventuring" proficiencies, but what about something like cook's utensils? Most people would see that as a profession, the tools of a chef, but WotC has done a lot to support the adventuring value thereof.

I've already given my two cents about the "survivor" format, but these "many starting options with few points" ones seem to intensify all the things I don't really care for. It's more of a back-and-forth nail biter if you have a smaller list, with certain rare exceptions (like Bard, where Lore won with like 30+ points.)

 

[CleverNickName]

Frankly, I'd been expecting it for a while, but then again I also expected History to not evaporate nigh-instantly.

I know right? History is one of the most often-used checks at my table. We use it for all sorts of things: remembering stuff you learned in school, recognizing someone you met years ago (or last weekend), recalling something that someone said at the tavern last night, researching ancient lore, learning the backstory of that fancy wand you just found...

Ah well. This is a Survivor thread, not a "best in show" contest. The point is to get us talking about these skills, so I guess we're doing it right?