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

[Rune]

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.

And I don't have a problem with having a trained skill provide such a bonus, if it can be balanced with a character who chooses not to use skills (and without making the DM use a different set of DCs). I suggested something upthread that I think would suffice:

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.

Because a more trained character would be using smaller dice, that maximum value would pop up more frequently than for less (or non-) trained characters.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Because a more trained character would be using smaller dice, that maximum value would pop up more frequently than for less (or non-) trained characters.

I admit, I do like that aspect.

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

My RPG uses the Profession skill, but you have to specialize. Depending on your level, it improves in depth or breath. Essentially, at level 0-3, you might be a bladesmith or infantry, but at level 3, you get your choice: either +1 to that profession (depth), or increase your trade by one step, so a bladesmith might become a blacksmith and infantry might become a mercenary or soldier. At levels 7, 11, and 15, you get another +1 or +1 step.

So, say you have Profession (Forester). At level 3, you make this Profession (Forester: +1), giving yourself a +1 on appropriate rolls (as determined by the GM). At level 7, you make this Profession (Ranger: +1), since you choose to bump it one step. At level 11, it's Profession (Ranger: +2), and finally Profession (Head Ranger: +2) at level 15.

If you only boosted its depth, it might look like this:
Level 0: Profession (Forester)
Level 3: Profession (Ranger)
Level 7: Profession (Head Ranger)
Level 11 (branches to Tier 2 Profession related to primary Profession): Profession (Head Ranger / Bandit)
Level 15 (increase secondary Profession to Tier 3): Profession (Head Ranger / Bandit Leader)

Now, if you want to avoid the branching (too complex for some), just make it "advance breadth (max Tier 3), or add depth of +1 (no limit)." Simple simple.

However, I use this in a system that still has Hide, Move Silently, etc. in it. So, if I want to, I can pick up Profession (Thief), and I'll get to use Hide and Move Silently in many situations. If, however, I want it in all situations for all uses and at all times, I invest in Hide and Move Silently (which allow for things like sniping, fading into the background in a crowd, muffling the sound of your blow, etc.). Hide and Move Silently are big investments, but guarantee you can use all uses of them at all times. However, Profession (Thief) will give you moving silently and hiding from people, probably some ability to pick locks, some ability to pickpocket, etc.

At any rate, my point is even if you go with just a Profession system, if you go the depth / breadth route, you can definitely have character growth. As always, play what you like

 

[Starfox]

My biggest problem with the 3E skill system is it's swinginess. 1d20 is a wide, linear probability spread. 1d10 is a smaller spread but still linear. Advantage has a slanting probability curve that usually gives at least a decent result, but the chance of failure is still there. I find I like that best of the proposed systems. The fact that races already use this mechanic is not a big issue to me; skill rules are more important part of the game than race rules, so races could be given a flat-out bonus instead (or some other bonus the designers like better).

Another thing that I know bothers my players is that in this system (as in 4E), you don't continue developing your skill. In 3E, each level you advance brings its own skill options, so skill growth can be a very organic system based on what you actually did to gain this level. I realize this is hard to combine with the reduced complexity on 5E, I am just mentioning.

 

[Rune]

Another thing that I know bothers my players is that in this system (as in 4E), you don't continue developing your skill. In 3E, each level you advance brings its own skill options, so skill growth can be a very organic system based on what you actually did to gain this level. I realize this is hard to combine with the reduced complexity on 5E, I am just mentioning.

I did provide an option for skill-development in the OP, though. Sure, it's less granular than the 3e skill system, but I think if you want that level of complexity, it's gonna have to be an advanced module that the group, as a whole, has to opt into, because that level of granularity will pretty much require large numbers. Which will, of course, lead to that swinginess you mentioned--as DCs will then have a wide gap between unskilled and specialized, especially at higher levels.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Attack and Spellcasting bonuses have set up default system that looks like this:

d20 + Ability Score (up to +5) + Training (up to +5).

When I say that the game needs skills by default, what I mean is that I want all checks to follow the above pattern, even in the basic game.

That's why I think the Skill Bonus should be part of basic.

It could even be as simple as: everyone has a skill bonus that goes up with level. They add it to all checks and saves.

If a player wants to use an advanced skill system, the skill bonus gets replaced with individual skills.

 

[Rune]

Attack and Spellcasting bonuses have set up default system that looks like this:

d20 + Ability Score (up to +5) + Training (up to +5).

When I say that the game needs skills by default, what I mean is that I want all checks to follow the above pattern, even in the basic game.

That's why I think the Skill Bonus should be part of basic.

I get it. I just don't agree. I have shown that the game doesn't need to assume that all characters use skills by default and I think that enforcing it just to maintain an artificial symmetry with the attack bonuses is a needless limitation on playstyle.

It could even be as simple as: everyone has a skill bonus that goes up with level. They add it to all checks and saves.

If a player wants to use an advanced skill system, the skill bonus gets replaced with individual skills.

But you're talking about an advanced skill system applied across the board. I do think we should and will see one of those modules, but it certainly doesn't fix the primary issue my proposal was designed to address (that is, being unable to have skill-using characters side by side with non-skill using characters and having them be balanced with each other--without having to use two sets of DCs).

Of course, if you don't see it as a problem in the first place, fair enough, but some of us do. Generally, I'd prefer to see rules that were inclusive, rather than exclusive, when possible.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I get it. I just don't agree. I have shown that the game doesn't need to assume that all characters use skills by default and I think that enforcing it just to maintain an artificial symmetry with the attack bonuses is a needless limitation on playstyle.

It's not artificial symmetry, but mechanical consistency. Playstyle isn't a factor. The game has an attack bonus. It has a spellcasting bonus. Adding a Skill bonus that works exactly the same way, isn't changing the nature of the game, nor is it adding complexity. Adding a single bonus removes an inconsistency, especially since they're discussing having skill proficiencies.

Nor, really, is this a skill system as we're familiar with it. At least, no more than an attack bonus is. Those looking for a basic, ability score based game would likely be perfectly content with such a solution.

Plus, by being consistent with attack and spellcasting bonuses, not only can we replace the skill bonus with individual skills, but we could have similar systems for attacks and spellcasting, which I know will appeal to some players.

None of this is intended as an attack on your idea, which is a good one. I simply feel that this is a better approach.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I do like the idea of going to something like a dice pool system for skills.

Roll 1D20 for against attribute if you are untrained.
Each "skill" level above that provides an additional D20. (Novice +1 die, Journeyman +2, Master +3)
Every successful roll beyond the first provides a +5 to the top score.

You could have Daily or Encounter Action points for those that want to represent "effort" that could just add to the pool. There is no need to have this in the core rules or even as a module. Just take your favorite skill list from any game you want to represent, start people with 4 dice that they can apply to skill levels and go to town.

I don't know that this needs to be in the core game, but it could be a fun optional module or homebrew system for tables that want a more detailed skill system.

 

[Rune]

It's not artificial symmetry, but mechanical consistency. Playstyle isn't a factor. The game has an attack bonus. It has a spellcasting bonus. Adding a Skill bonus that works exactly the same way, isn't changing the nature of the game, nor is it adding complexity. Adding a single bonus removes an inconsistency, especially since they're discussing having skill proficiencies.

I think we're talking past each other a little bit. Let me clarify: if the basic mechanic for a an ability check has a bonus roughly equivalent to an attack or magic bonus, that's not a problem at all. The DCs can be adjusted across the board to account for that.

But playstyle is a factor if answer to the question, "How does a non-skilled character compare to a skilled character in this system?" is "It doesn't." Which is what it seems like your suggestion that an advanced skill system that replaces that bonus with individual skills would do.

None of this is intended as an attack on your idea, which is a good one. I simply feel that this is a better approach.

No worries. As a matter of fact, it seems as if your idea of adding the bonus into the base math would actually be 100% compatible with my proposal, as it, would be reflected across the board for all ability checks. I still don't see the need for it, but I don't have a problem with it, either (as long as the numbers stay as small as you've suggested).