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

[darjr]

After thinking about it I have to agree with the Jester. Something along the lines of advantage for highly skilled and disadvantage for those untrained attempts at things that NEED training. Skills and feats are not similar enough to be treated with the same kind of solution.

 

[Warbringer]

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.

That's basically a fate or action point mechanism; make any d20 an autosuccess, which I like, but why restrict it to skills?

 

[keterys]

Hmm. It sounds like your players prefer not to roll.

Most people I know who want to be "The Loremaster" or "The Diplomancer" or whatever _want_ to get those high crazy rolls and show off how they never fail, not eliminate the roll entirely.

 

[jadrax]

Most people I know who want to be "The Loremaster" or "The Diplomancer" or whatever _want_ to get those high crazy rolls and show off how they never fail, not eliminate the roll entirely.

I must admit this is my experience.

 

[keterys]

In one of the adventures I wrote, I gave out some sheets of knowledge the PCs could get for various DCs.

I had one guy complaining that it stopped at what is normally the highest DC listed in the game. But his PC could get that on a 1, so he wanted to know what he'd get for 20 higher.

Mind you, I see no reason to give _anything_ for overspecialization to that degree, but he clearly enjoyed his HUGE #s. When I did DM for a PC who had a similar knowledge-based build I simply handed the sheets across and told her to do with that knowledge what she would

 

[Starfox]

Edit: My viewer failed to show more than the first post in this thread when I wrote this reply.

How about simply giving advantage to skill rolls, instead of 1d10+10?

And another bigger but: if this is an opt-in system, what incentive do I have for NOT opting in? iI the choice is between rolling 1d10+10 for some skills and 1d20 for the rest, vs. rolling 1d20 for all, that is not really a choice. Everybody would pick #1.

One possibility: Pick a number of areas you are skilled in, where you gain advantage (about 1/4 of the skills). Pick a similar number of areas you are trained in, and suffer neither advantage or disadvantage. the rest (about 1/2 the possible skills) you are untrained in and suffer disadvantage on. This system has both advantages and disadvantages, so it could be said to be an opt-in system where opting our is a serious choice.

 

[Rune]

After thinking about it I have to agree with the Jester. Something along the lines of advantage for highly skilled and disadvantage for those untrained attempts at things that NEED training.

The advantage/disadvantage is an obvious simple skill system, but it does step on the toes of races that grant advantage to ability checks for certain things like listen and spot. I'd much rather these races weren't automatically skilled in those things.

Skills and feats are not similar enough to be treated with the same kind of solution.

Meaning you don't think the game should allow for a non-skilled character to be balanced with a skilled one? Because your suggestion is functionally the same as mine--no increase to the upper end of ability (except for increases granted through ability boosts) and a higher chance of success for trained characters (although your suggestion does allow for trained characters to fail at simple tasks).

That's basically a fate or action point mechanism; make any d20 an autosuccess, which I like, but why restrict it to skills?

Because if you can use it for an autosuccess for attack rolls (for instance), it is obviously a superior choice to gaining a skill.

Most people I know who want to be "The Loremaster" or "The Diplomancer" or whatever _want_ to get those high crazy rolls and show off how they never fail, not eliminate the roll entirely.

Fair enough. A simple solution to that problem would be to add the following option: If you roll the maximum value for your ability check, something crazy good happens (or the die explodes, if your player really likes rolling dice!). This would still be balanced with the non-skilled character with the Succeed when you need to ability.

 

[Starfox]

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.

I've also used this in one-off games, particularly rules light or no-rules games. But I consider it unsuitable for campaign use - it allows no character growth in-game.

 

[Rune]

How about simply giving advantage to skill rolls, instead of 1d10+10?

I answered this very question in the post directly below yours, but I'll restate it here for convenience: While functionally similar to my proposal (although allowing for the possibility of trained characters to fail at simple tasks), this does step on the toes of some racial abilities. If you don't have a problem with elves being automatically trained in listen and spot, for instance, it'll work just fine. I, however, would prefer that they not be automatically trained. Furthermore, I like how those abilities overlap with my proposal.

And another bigger but: if this is an opt-in system, what incentive do I have for NOT opting in? iI the choice is between rolling 1d10+10 for some skills and 1d20 for the rest, vs. rolling 1d20 for all, that is not really a choice. Everybody would pick #1.

I will once again answer this question by referring to my original post:

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.

This, to me, would seem to be a very closely balanced option (in that I, as a player, would probably take the best of both worlds and build a character with two skills and two uses of the "Succeed when you need to" ability.

One possibility: Pick a number of areas you are skilled in, where you gain advantage (about 1/4 of the skills). Pick a similar number of areas you are trained in, and suffer neither advantage or disadvantage. the rest (about 1/2 the possible skills) you are untrained in and suffer disadvantage on. This system has both advantages and disadvantages, so it could be said to be an opt-in system where opting our is a serious choice.

Okay, that could work, but what if the group is using an open-ended skill list? As will likely be the case at many tables.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

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?

I don't dislike your proposal. I'm just pontificating. I do feel that getting a bonus from skills matters as a mechanical representation of skill. But I also really like making skills more reliable.