D&D 5E Designing a skill system that the PLAYER can opt into.

[Rune]

Um... just to quibble, it doesn't actually say that; it specifically endorses the dm just accepting that pcs will succeed more often with skills.

Let me rephrase. The L&L tells us (indirectly), that if we want to let the players opt out of having skills while others have them, we will either have to have two sets of DCs, or the characters with skills will simply be better than the characters without. This, as I see it, is a problem, which I have addressed.

Do you disagree that it is a problem? If not, do you disagree with the implementation of my fix for this problem? Do you have one that you would prefer to see?

 

[oblivious]

IMO the existence of Expert Feats takes a lot of the load off of the skill system: mechanics already exist for characters to specialize in certain tasks. I would just give a free Skill Focus feat in any skill a character is proficient with. This is similar to but weaker than OP's suggestion.

 

[the Jester]

Let me rephrase. The L&L tells us (indirectly), that if we want to let the players opt out of having skills while others have them, we will either have to have two sets of DCs, or the characters with skills will simply be better than the characters without. This, as I see it, is a problem, which I have addressed.

Do you disagree that it is a problem? If not, do you disagree with the implementation of my fix for this problem? Do you have one that you would prefer to see?

Well, I agree it's a problem, but I think your solution is too fiddly.

My solution-of-choice is simply to give each pc a background and say, "When you make an ability check and you think your background ought to apply, check with your dm. If he agrees, you get advantage/a flat bonus/to add your skill die/etc". Instead of a specific skill check, I'd rather see a simpler "my background trained me for this" mechanic adjudicated by the dm.

 

[Rune]

With the changes to feats that I think we will be seeing (upgrading their power to be equivalent to a +1/2 ability modifier increase), I don't think those expertise feats will look quite like they do currently.

Either way, the character who opts out of feats as well as skills is out of luck, unless you're suggesting that that bonus expertise feat could then be traded for a +1 ability score bump (similar to [MENTION=21178]Szatany[/MENTION]'s earlier suggestion).

 

[Rune]

My solution-of-choice is simply to give each pc a background and say, "When you make an ability check and you think your background ought to apply, check with your dm. If he agrees, you get advantage/a flat bonus/to add your skill die/etc". Instead of a specific skill check, I'd rather see a simpler "my background trained me for this" mechanic adjudicated by the dm.

This is very similar to the skill system I run with in most of my games, but I don't think it balances well for a player who prefers a system of more specific skills, as they will automatically be less diverse than the character with the broadly defined "background" skill. At least, that's been my experience.

My proposal is predicated on the assumption that the players, and not the DM, will be the ones determining whether or not they will use skills, as is being done for feats.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

To be honest, I'm not sure having skills be entirely optional is the right answer, and would be content if there was simply a skill bonus like there is an attack bonus, and you get it with trained skills. Then the advanced module can be points for individual skills.

One of the things Mearls mentioned was that people felt that the skill bonus wasn't big enough. Certainly in Third Edition, skill bonuses greatly eclipsed ability scores. But I don't think catering to this desire is good for the game.

I still want to see a system that, in addition to a modest bonus, also introduces a minimum d20 result. And I still want to see rank names.

Apprentice: +1 with a minimum d20 result of 6
Journeyman: +2 with a minimum d20 result of 8
Professional: +3 with a minimum d20 result of 10
Expert: +4 with a minimum d20 result of 12
Master: +5 with a minimum d20 result of 14


My final point is that I think the optional skill system should probably interface with the new feat system, or even be entirely a part of it.

 

[jadrax]

One of the things Mearls mentioned was that people felt that the skill bonus wasn't big enough. Certainly in Third Edition, skill bonuses greatly eclipsed ability scores. But I don't think catering to this desire is good for the game.

100% agreement here. The huge skill bonuses in 3.5 where one of the things that killed the system for me.

 

[keterys]

Which would make skill training awesome. Especially with advantage thrown in. Not seeing a problem, here.

Umm, that one player who chooses not to take skills is _much_ worse than another?

And that you've wrecked the skill DCs, which you're saying you want to avoid. Even more so than just adding a die does.

Balance what?

Opportunity cost. Two players. One opts into the system, one doesn't. What does one give up vs the other?

Also, it retains the having to have different sets of DCs problem that the L&L talked about.

Yours does just as much. Actually, more so for all but one DC pretty much - at a certain point you'd stop bothering to roll skills with your system because there'd never be a point. I automatically get DC 20 on every check, don't even ask me to roll. What are you actually trying to get out of this? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the true goal, if you're excited that everyone would want to do skills because they make them more awesome. That's not an option, that's just a gimme.

 

[Rune]

To be honest, I'm not sure having skills be entirely optional is the right answer...

Why not? I have shown that it could be done, even if you don't like the particular implementation. If it could be done, why not live up to the design goal of being able to play different complexity characters side by side as much as possible?

One of the things Mearls mentioned was that people felt that the skill bonus wasn't big enough.

My proposal provides a substantial bonus to the consistency of success (as [MENTION=43019]keterys[/MENTION]'s math shows earlier in this thread).

Certainly in Third Edition, skill bonuses greatly eclipsed ability scores. But I don't think catering to this desire is good for the game.

This was a major contributor to how unwieldy that system (and 4e, as well), became at high levels. Not everyone will want to play such a system. My proposal is not directed toward the players who do, but toward a balance between the basic and standard game. A more 3e style skill system would almost certainly need to be an advanced module applied across the board.

I still want to see a system that, in addition to a modest bonus, also introduces a minimum d20 result. And I still want to see rank names.

Apprentice: +1 with a minimum d20 result of 6
Journeyman: +2 with a minimum d20 result of 8
Professional: +3 with a minimum d20 result of 10
Expert: +4 with a minimum d20 result of 12
Master: +5 with a minimum d20 result of 14

Looks good, except for the top end bonus (which could work also, if there were an easy way to balance it with non-skill using characters).

My final point is that I think the optional skill system should probably interface with the new feat system, or even be entirely a part of it.

Do you mean in the way that [MENTION=6728061]oblivious[/MENTION] suggested upthread?

 

[Rune]

Umm, that one player who chooses not to take skills is _much_ worse than another?

And that you've wrecked the skill DCs, which you're saying you want to avoid. Even more so than just adding a die does.

Opportunity cost. Two players. One opts into the system, one doesn't. What does one give up vs the other?

I'm not sure you caught this part of my OP, so I'll repost it:

So, how to balance the character that has, say, 4 of these skills with one who doesn't? I'm sure there are plenty of ways. Personally, I'd like to see something that more or less takes the place of the skills--that is, a simplified means of making task accomplishment easier.

This is how I'd do it: For every trained skill that the character would be entitled to, but chooses not to, I'd give them one use of a "Succeed when you need to" ability (that, when expended, would grant automatic success to an ability check or contest). Each use, once expended, would only recharge after the character has gained a new level.

And if you don't think a few auto-successes per character level is a very powerful option, you haven't met my players!

...at a certain point you'd stop bothering to roll skills with your system because there'd never be a point. I automatically get DC 20 on every check, don't even ask me to roll. What are you actually trying to get out of this?

Exactly! Why force a player to roll when the outcome is certain? The more trained a character is, the less often they'll have to roll to succeed at tasks. Remember how the first packet had a rule for auto-success for skill checks? It would be like that, but based on skill-training instead of ability score.