D&D (2024) How would you change skills in 5.5e

[DEFCON 1]

So long as the baseline game has set Ability/Skill combos, then there will not be sustantative changes to the skill system. Because for instance... Nature is an Intelligence check for knowing lore, which does not apply to the Wisdom check needed/wanted in the system for both Animal Handling and Medicine... so the game wants both skills in it. Likewise the need for both Athletics and Acrobatics so long as one triggers off Strength and the other off Dexterity.

Now that being said... if WotC decided to bring the variant rules of 'Alternative Ability Scores for Skills' forward and made baseline... then yes, you in theory could make changes to the skill system. You could get rid of Acrobatics and instead just ask for STR (Athletics) checks for climbing and swimming or DEX (Athletics) checks for balance and tumbling. Likewise the four "lore skills" (Arcana, History, Nature & Religion) could all be used with other ability scores for their different functions-- WIS (Nature) for animal handling for instance. Or consolidate Deception and Sleight of Hand and make the former CHA (Deception) and the latter DEX (Deception).

However, that being said... I do not believe WotC will in fact do any of that, because in order to maintain backwards compatibility there would be many places in all the older adventure books where they would be calling for checks that might no longer exist if they consolidated or changed the skill system. And in truth... the skill system is such an easy place to houserule... any table that WANTS a different system can just make one for themselves. Heck, I don't believe I've ever used the standard 5E skill system any time I've run the game (other than the online pandemic game I ran just because D&D Beyond won't let you futz with the skill list enough yet and I wanted things easy for my players.)

But there's absolutely no reason why any DM shouldn't curate their skill list for the individual campaign they are running depending on the focus of the game. Like in my ancient Greek Theros game... I have added Warfare and Nautics to my skill list because war and sailing are two very important aspects of the campaign and I wanted more granularity. And because I don't like using the 5E Tool system, I add Mechanics as a skill that takes the place of Thieves' Tools-- and use DEX (Mechanics) to open locks and disable traps, while INT (Mechanics) is for all engineering questions and information.

 

[Emberashh]

You could get rid of Acrobatics

I see no reason at all to get rid of skills just because you can swap the abilities around, other than to just consolidate ad absurdum.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I see no reason at all to get rid of skills just because you can swap the abilities around, other than to just consolidate ad absurdum.

If a DM thought they had a viable distinction in mind for their game world when using DEX (Athletics) versus DEX (Acrobatics), I'd agree with you. Especially for those DMs who are looking for even more granularity in their skill system, they might be able to and want to distinguish between those actions that would be DEX (Athletics) versus those that would fall under DEX (Acrobatics). I do not disagree.

Me personally though... I don't see Athletics/Acrobatics rolled nearly enough at my tables to warrant having two separate skills, because I don't like having some skills that are greatly overused compared to others. I prefer as much equity between skills as possible so that no players feels like they "wasted" a proficiency on a skill that never shows up (while the players who took proficiency in Perception for example see that skill get used all the time.) That's why I only have the one proficiency on grand physical movement (Athletics) and then you can apply in the ability score that makes the most sense for the action you are undertaking.

The same could be said for something like Intimidation-- currently in the game it is CHA (Intimidation), but the DMG talks about the variant rule that says you could use STR (Intimidation) if the methodology for intimidating the person made more sense if the PC used their strength. But I know there are other DMs out there (and we see them in these kinds of threads all the time) that would rather actually have an entirely different skill and proficiency that was essentially STR (Intimidation), rather than the one proficiency that you could apply either ability score to. Neither way is necessarily better or worse... it all comes down to individual DM preference and what their table would get the most use out of.

 

[Emberashh]

I don't see Athletics/Acrobatics rolled nearly enough at my tables to warrant having two separate skills, because I don't like having some skills that are greatly overused compared to others

I think thats more an issue with how the skills are presented. The distinction between the two is rather blurry, and in the vernacular its a lot more common for athletics to be used as a general catch all for everything both skills do, whereas acrobatics is a more niche term that has a very specific connotation in the real world.

Hence, why people might tend to default to athletics to solve some movement problem. Resolving that issue is probably better resolved through renaming rather than consolidating, as the name issue aside, it is still desirable to want both concepts separated.

A well conditioned soldier isn't an acrobat and vice versa.

If it were me, and it kinda is as this is precisely what I did with LNO, Id rename Athletics to Conditioning and Acrobatics to Athletics.

Makes both skills a lot more intuitive, at least to a western audience, and should make it easier for skill checks to be called for more equally between the two. Conditioning represents the macro physical prowess of a character while Athletics covers the more micro physical prowess of the character. Conditioning says you can run this far or jump this high, but Athletics says you can do it this precisely and gracefully.

While in LNO, theres no need to worry about ability modifiers (at least, not in the same way DND does them), for DNDs system the interaction of the ability scores should also be a bit more straight forward. The use of Dex vs Str in both skills would simply have to be contextual.

Trying to run across the bridge of Khazadum? Dex (Conditioning). Cross a crowd of drunken peasants? Str (Conditioning).

Need to climb a crumbling wall without making a sound? Dex (Athletics). Any particular climb but youve got a wounded halfling strapped to you? Str (athletics).

And so on. The important thing as far as DNDs system goes is that while the player can pitch the skill to use, they shouldn't be saying what attribute. (Though the can of worms this inevitably opens is part of why I moved away from ability mods, and made more of a hybrid 3-save sysrem)

Incidentally, the name change route also opens up some additional mechanics by way of what Conditioning as a name implies (such as temperature resistance, disease resistance, etc), which will also help bolster the usage rates for the skill.

 

[ART!]

I've toyed with the idea of getting rid of Proficiencies and just folding all that into skills. Are you skilled with melee weapons? Are you skilled with Mason's tools? Are you skilled at playing the lute? Proficiency Bonus becomes Skilled Bonus. Proficiency disappears from the game. Some of this is semantics, but it would get rid of a layer of terminology and complexity.

 

[Clint_L]

I would like to see data from DDB on how frequently each skill is rolled. Then I would use that data to refine the skill list to try to bring it much closer to parity, taking into account that some usages are more powerful than others. I definitely think the current list could be pruned by combining elements of different skills.

And there are some skills that should just require specific training to be used; i.e. should only be available as class features or feats. Medicine, as it is normally used in game (to stabilize a dying person within seconds) is not something that you can just have a go at - you are a combat medic, with all that implies (for D&D purposes I would add enough sweeteners to make it viable).

A central problem with the way skills are done in 5e is that they are tied so closely to attributes that don't reflect how people actually work, leading to strongly counterintuitive results. Intelligence, for example, is not a single "attribute" in human beings - it is not exactly breaking news that all of us have strengths and weaknesses when it comes to thinking. For example, I am very good at reading and writing based tasks, but not great at practical problem solving tasks. My cousin is a genius with musical instruments but terrible at math. And so on.

And what even is "wisdom"? How is it different from intelligence? Like, I know how it is defined in D&D: "Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition." But in actuality, the game uses it as the "cleric" attribute, and always has, which makes it more about spiritual rather than worldly awareness. The consequence is that clerics are the go to class for things like animal handling (should be rangers), insight (should be rogues), medicine (see above) and perception (should be barbarians or monks).

So I would, first, try to better balance the usefulness of skills per my first point. Then I would divorce them from attributes and instead build them more strongly into class and background. I would use them to tune class balance - a rogue or fighter would start with more skills than a wizard or cleric (which to me makes sense, since the latter classes are much more narrowly focused in their training). I would give every class a minimum of one expertise to start with, derived from their class (rogues, bards, and rangers might start with 2-3). And every level I would let every character add +1 to any skill, even if not currently proficient in it (gotta start somewhere).

 

[Clint_L]

Without seeing data, here's how I would prune the skill list (keeping in mind that these would no longer be tied to attributes):

Athletics (includes Acrobatics)
Investigation
Medicine (includes Alchemy)
Natural Lore (combines History and Nature)
Perception (includes Insight)
Persuasion (includes Intimidation)
Performance (includes Deception)
Stealth (includes Sleight of Hand)
Supernatural Lore (combines Arcana and Religion)
Survival (includes Animal Handling)
Tinkering (includes Thieves' Tools)

 

[Pauln6]

I think making expertise a 1d4 dice roll works better than double proficiency. I improves your chances without making non-expertise characters feel that there is no point trying. I know that Level up treats Guidance the same as expertise and it stacks by increasing the dice size. So someone with expertise who received guidance would roll 1d6.

 

[Tonguez]

Decouple Skills from Attributes

* Movement Skills Str = Athletics, Dex = Acrobatics, Con = Endurance

* Social Skills Cha=Persuasion, Wis=Gather Info, Str=Intmidate, Cha=Deception, Int=Wit/Rhetoric, Wis=Insight

* Observation skills Int= Investigation and Wis=active perception (spot, listen etc), Cha= insight
~Passive perception remains (I use DC steps like Bardic knowledge)

* Survival skills - Foraging, Tracking, Camping, Nature (Lore), Herbalism, Weather Prediction, Orientation

* Animal Handling Wis = Train, Cha = Befriend, Dex = Ride, Int = Zoo lore

* Stealth skills Dex =Hide, Silence, Cha= Disguise, Dex =Slight of hand

* Lore - Arcana, History, Geography, Nature, Religion, Architecture Wis= Culture (language), Cha =Ettiquette etc
~ Wis Architecture =find secret doors, sloping floors etc

* Profession/Craft/Performance (Tool Use skills)

* Alchemy (use Herbalism kit/Medicine kit/Poison kit) skill check can be used to give someone a bonus healing surge or apply poison

NB I also want a skill based magic system, but thats a different discussion

 

[Vaalingrade]

A DM can require players to interact with any scene narratively.

For example. The DM can forbid players from saying game-mechanics like, "I roll Persuasion on the guard."

That sound amazingly hostile and distressing for a lot of types of players. Not everyone is an actor and improver or aspires to be. They also might not be comfortable being put on the spot trying to make up speeches or new terms to backbend around game terms.

And the game becomes more immersive too.

But at what cost?