D&D 5E (2014) Eliminating skill & feat taxes

[fuindordm]

The DMG offers some skill variants that might interest you. For example, eliminate skills altogether and just grant the proficiency bonus when attempting an action that matches class or background.

 

[Ahrimon]

I think the first mistake that I see people making is assuming that just because a character doesn't have proficiency in a skill then it sucks at that skill. Proficiency is only a 10% to 20% difference for all but the most powerful adventurers.

Just because someone doesn't have animal handling doesn't mean they can't ride like a champ and take care of animals. It just means that someone trained is a bit better. If your character concept relies on being the master of 50 skills then the problem is with the concept and not the system. That's like saying I'm making a 1st level fighter who is a sword master. Yes he's better than the average man, but he's hardly a master. Talk with the DM about making your character a few years older and having more starting skills.

 

[abirdcall]

I think the first mistake that I see people making is assuming that just because a character doesn't have proficiency in a skill then it sucks at that skill. Proficiency is only a 10% to 20% difference for all but the most powerful adventurers.

Just because someone doesn't have animal handling doesn't mean they can't ride like a champ and take care of animals. It just means that someone trained is a bit better. If your character concept relies on being the master of 50 skills then the problem is with the concept and not the system. That's like saying I'm making a 1st level fighter who is a sword master. Yes he's better than the average man, but he's hardly a master. Talk with the DM about making your character a few years older and having more starting skills.

So you would be completely fine with 5e if athletics, stealth, & perception remained as they were but every other skill was split into 3 different skills? And if someone had trouble reflecting their character in the game then the fault is automatically with their concept? (Though having tons of skills as a concept does completely work. A Half-Elf Lore Bard has 10 skills).

It is absolutely possible to have skills that are bad for the game.

Whether that is the case is up for discussion. Saying that the system can't be wrong is ridiculous.

The problem in your example is that if I want a character who is great at handling animals, I might as well just not take the skill because it isn't going to come up much anyway and I should focus on more useful skills like athletics, stealth, & survival.

In that case I don't see the problem with just letting the character have it as part of survival.

I fail to see the point to Animal Handling, Medicine, & Performance.

I can see the argument for keeping 4 distinct lore skills. That is the one I was on the fence about and still am. I like Nature as science.

The flip side to all of this is that you don't want too few skills. You do want different characters to have different skills. The idea of giving free tool proficiencies with some skills is interesting, I think I lean away from that just to maintain that variety. If I keep medicine as its own skill I might give those proficiencies for free though.

And yeah the Eldritch Knight thing is tough for me. I think they should have it as part of the subclass feature. I like the limitation on other characters. It just seems like something an EK should be able to do. I suppose with all the extra feats fighters get it isn't a big deal and they can get it at 4 easily enough.

 

[Kryx]

Whether that is the case is up for discussion. Saying that the system can't be wrong is ridiculous.

100% agreed. Just because some throwaway skills are the default option doesn't mean the default option is good.

To clarify what I posted: the tools/skills are rolled into the other skill. That other tool/skill ceases to exist.

 

[Pauper]

I agree. There is a balance to be struck. If Athletics were 3 skills in 5e would that help or hinder martial characters?

This used to be the case back in Third Edition, but for rogues -- you had Hide and Move Silently as 'sneak' skills, which were opposed by Spot and Listen. You then had to have Search as a separate thing from Spot (because Spot was for opposing Hide, not for, say, looking for traps).

Then you divided Open Locks and Disable Device, because picking a lock and disabling a trap were different things in AD&D, and thus needed to stay different things.

The designers made up for it by giving rogues way more skill points, but that just caused different problems -- specifically the 'why do wizards get so few skill points compared to rogues' (wizards don't actually get that many fewer skill points, if you build your rogues with average Int, but nobody does that because they want All The Skill Points to get All The Skills).

Now, we have Stealth and Perception, and we have Thievery for all the thieving stuff. And in 5E, if you want to be a guy who knows how to pick locks but isn't all 'I know all the thieving stuff', you can be proficient with lockpicks but not with thieves' tools (it's sub-optimal, but you can choose it for Character Reasons if you like).

In fact, this is one of the strengths of the 5E skill system -- Performance technically already gives effective proficiency in all instruments, as long as those instruments are being used in a performance. You make a Charisma (Performance) check, and you get the proficiency bonus -- you don't get double the bonus because you're also proficient with the shawm. Being proficient in the shawm is helpful if you're not proficient in Performance, as well as for other checks you're not proficient with (like an Intelligence (Investigation) check to discover why your shawm is broken).

I like the idea of proficiency with rope use, and would allow a character to take (or learn, via Downtime) proficiency with rope as a tool to gain the proficiency bonus on tasks involving rope (so climbing a rope would grant the bonus, even if the character isn't proficient in Athletics).

It gets back, a bit, toward something that some players really liked about the old 3E Profession skill -- even if they seldom (or ever) used it in-game, it allowed them to say something about their character that was backed-up by a game mechanic; if I've got 10 ranks in Profession (Cook), then I'm a pretty danged good cook, way better than someone who just relies on 'natural ability'. I can't quite get to that level of a statement in 5E, but saying 'I'm proficient in Cook's utensils' says I'm a better cook than someone who didn't take that proficiency, and says something I feel is important about my character.

--
Pauper

 

[Shiroiken]

Something they did during the playtest that I liked, was the concept of overly broad skills. They had no specific ties to ability scores, and covered a broad range of things. If the DM instructed you to make a check, you could ask if a particular skill could be used to add to the roll. This was discarded, probably due to the desire for simplicity.

As for the Feats, there is no such thing as a Feat Tax IMO, since the default option is no Feats. Think of it this way: having a Feat makes you Better at something, or able to do something others can't do at all. If you design a character type that "HAS" to have a Feat, then it's not a tax, it's the price you pay for something you want.

Oh, and War Caster is in no way a Feat Tax for the EK. You can use a two handed weapon, casting spells with one hand while you hold the sword in the other (per Errata) instead of using a shield. You can also go arcane archer, using a longbow with the same results.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think skills are fine as is - BUT we also allow your background to give prof bonus to an ability check if sensible. Eg bounty hunter background, then you get prof on tracking and seeking out rumours about your quarry.

I don't consider any feats as required - BUT we did change the -5/+10 mechanic of GWM & SS to just +1 stat. If you want the bonus action free attack from GWM (really becomes "weapon master" after you remove the -5/+10 heavy weapon part), you take the feat, but it's hardly a must/tax.

 

[Chaosmancer]

[MENTION=6748898]ad_hoc[/MENTION]

I can agree with the tools, except that generally speaking the person using the herbalism kit for healing and the person who wants the poisoner's kit for poisoning are not the same person or concept. If they overlapped, I might houserule it for that character, but if they grabbed assassin and... wow, hermit is the only background that gives herbalism kits and none of them give poison. Anyways, double tool proficiencies allow you to choose whatever you want and I think most characters who want both will be able to do both as is.

For the skills though...

Survival and animal handling are very different in my mind. Animal handling is like being a horse whisperer, doesn't mean you know what berries to eat, and knowing how to travel in the forest doesn't mean you have a special connection with the forest animals. Now, I would say with all the magical ways to befriend animals Animal Handling is low tier, but not the same as survival at all.

Medicine is nothing like Nature. For me Nature mainly covers basic geography and knowing about the creatures and spirits of the wilds. Medicine is anatomy. Sure, medicine often covers uses for plants and herbs, but it is also bone splints, arteries, respiratory systems, infection. Just way to different for me.

History and Religion aren't the same either. History is more politics and recognizing noble houses and what they are doing. Also great battles, anything found in history books. Religion covers the planes, the gods, celestials, fiends, undead to an extent iconography of churches and cults, practices.

Performance essentially does that, considering how proficiencies work.

Now all this being said. If you see clear overlap in a situation, I'd allow it to work. They want to use Nature to find herbs to cure poison, go for it. History of the Church to know they were involved in the great war, perfect. However, there are clear ares they do not overlap and allow the characters of different concepts to have different skills. I see where the ideas are coming from (I agree move silently and hide or swim and climb were too granular), I just don't think we need to go that far yet.

 

[Ahrimon]

It is absolutely possible to have skills that are bad for the game.

Whether that is the case is up for discussion. Saying that the system can't be wrong is ridiculous.

I've looked at my post and I can't find where I said that the system can't be wrong. Can you please point it out to me or were you just making things up to counter my argument? Isn't there a name for an argument like that?

What I said was that if a concept requires more skills than is allowed then the problem is the concept, not that the system only allows X number of skills. If I wanted my character to be a 1st level character with all of the abilities of a 1st level fighter and a 1st level wizard the game does not support that by default. The problem is with the character concept.

Now, if a character concept relies on something that is not achievable by normal means then the system supports the DM making alterations. But complaining that the system is broken because the character concept lies outside the expected norm is silly IMO.

I could care less if you or anyone wants to change how the system works, I'm just pointing out that I have seen a lot of posters over the years that believe that if it's not on your sheet then you can't do it. That was the point of my post, but I'll freely admit I tend to ramble sometimes. Don't put so much stock in a little check box and proficiency bonus. Not having them does not mean that you can't do it.

 

[abirdcall]

Survival and animal handling are very different in my mind. Animal handling is like being a horse whisperer, doesn't mean you know what berries to eat, and knowing how to travel in the forest doesn't mean you have a special connection with the forest animals. Now, I would say with all the magical ways to befriend animals Animal Handling is low tier, but not the same as survival at all.

Medicine is nothing like Nature. For me Nature mainly covers basic geography and knowing about the creatures and spirits of the wilds. Medicine is anatomy. Sure, medicine often covers uses for plants and herbs, but it is also bone splints, arteries, respiratory systems, infection. Just way to different for me.

History and Religion aren't the same either. History is more politics and recognizing noble houses and what they are doing. Also great battles, anything found in history books. Religion covers the planes, the gods, celestials, fiends, undead to an extent iconography of churches and cults, practices.

I would go over the descriptions of the skills on pg 176-179.

They are actually quite different than how you have explained them here in 5e. Of course, that's fine, but I think where we disagree is that we are looking at different definitions.

For example, Nature covers science like meteorology with no mention of spirits. Medicine is also Wisdom which doesn't make sense to me, especially, as you say it is anatomy (a knowledge). You can't be an expert about the medicinal use of herbs without knowing about Medicine. Humanoids and animals are quite alike (in fact, humans are animals).

Arcana is the one that covers the planes, not religion. Religion and history do have quite a bit of overlap in their descriptions.

Now, wanting to keep them separate I understand. The overlap is clear though. Of course this isn't about them 'being the same'. It is about giving meaningful choices to players to create the characters they envision.

I don't see the point in splitting Animal Handling and Survival in two. It is quite easy to split them into 4 or 6 if we want to talk about distinct things that you can do with the skills, or any skill. It doesn't mean it should be that way though. For instance tracking is not the same skill as gathering berries or predicting the weather, etc. They are a package that represents a concept.

I am a fan of giving more power to backgrounds in general. During games I am open to players citing their background to get proficiency. I think I also want to make the special abilities they grant more powerful. but that is something else.