How would you change skills in 5.5e

[RealAlHazred]

Those skills could then act as saving throw proficiencies as well. That would definitely help in streamlining the game.

BUT... what if we streamlined the game by changing the saving throws to actually refer to the things they are saving against! We could make them against things like, I don't know... dragon's breath is a pretty common thing in games, so that's one. Maybe paralyzation? And some of the magic items, like wands, staffs and rods, although it would make it better if we combined those into one, I guess...

 

[DEFCON 1]

There is no skill system that is going to be right for all tables. Thus, there is no reason to try and get WotC to change things if they show no interest in wanting to change things.

Instead... you change things yourself for your table. Make the game right for you. And stop trying to convince everybody else that what you think the skill system should be is what everyone else should think it should be, just so you can use it as a flag to wave in order to try and get WotC to follow your lead and install the skill system you want. Because no one gets any points for "playing RAW"... so needing the rules to change so you can is pointless.

 

[Minigiant]

There is no skill system that is going to be right for all tables. Thus, there is no reason to try and get WotC to change things if they show no interest in wanting to change things.

Instead... you change things yourself for your table. Make the game right for you. And stop trying to convince everybody else that what you think the skill system should be is what everyone else should think it should be, just so you can use it as a flag to wave in order to try and get WotC to follow your lead and install the skill system you want. Because no one gets any points for "playing RAW"... so needing the rules to change so you can is pointless.

There is no skill system that is going to be right for all tables. But WOTC can offer 2-4 working skill systems that work for most tables.

There is no burger for all eaters. But burger joints offer vegan burgers and chicken burgers to feed most potential customers.

 

[RealAlHazred]

There is no skill system that is going to be right for all tables.

Well, I mean, you could use my system, or you could use a system that is definitively wrong...

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

There is no skill system that is going to be right for all tables. But WOTC can offer 2-4 working skill systems that work for most tables.

There is no burger for all eaters. But burger joints offer vegan burgers and chicken burgers to feed most potential customers.

While I like rules options and dials, they are worthless if they don't mix well with existing stat blocks and rules. If skills were re-designed to have different names, connected to different abilities, and have built in actions, that would require a full redesign of how all other rules interact with skills. If the actions are built in to skill training, it means that there is now a bit more exception-based design where there is only one way to do a precise thing.

That is full-edition worthy redesign. I would hazard a guess that is beyond the 2024 design intent. Sounds like extensive house rules/3rd party clone variation, rather than a viable option for Wizards to design

 

[Minigiant]

While I like rules options and dials, they are worthless if they don't mix well with existing stat blocks and rules. If skills were re-designed to have different names, connected to different abilities, and have built in actions, that would require a full redesign of how all other rules interact with skills. If the actions are built in to skill training, it means that there is now a bit more exception-based design where there is only one way to do a precise thing.

That is full-edition worthy redesign. I would hazard a guess that is beyond the 2024 design intent. Sounds like extensive house rules/3rd party clone variation, rather than a viable option for Wizards to design

That's the funny thing.
The 5e skill system is so barebones, you do not need a redesign.

For example,the game already has Strength Checks to

• Force open a stuck, locked, or barred door
• Break free of bonds
• Tip over a statue
• Keep a boulder from rolling

You just don't have a skill to add proficient or expertise to it. Adding a optional Force/Demolition (Str) doesn't break the game. And DMs are allowed to swap skills and ignore requirement on NPCs anyways.

And you can go the opposite way with less skills. No redesign needed.

 

[Lojaan]

Replace savings throws with skills. Don't need a fortitude save when you can make an athletics check. Don't need a reflex save when you can make an acrobatics check etc... They're the same thing

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Replace savings throws with skills. Don't need a fortitude save when you can make an athletics check. Don't need a reflex save when you can make an acrobatics check etc... They're the same thing

Fortitude is not athletics.

But one could add an endurance(con) skill.

But I think this would put too much weight onto selections that should not have that much of an impact on class functionality.

 

[DEFCON 1]

What really should happen is that people should just start considering attacks and saves as part of the "skill system". Because all three of those things are exactly the same-- roll a d20, add your ability score modifier, add your proficiency bonus if you are proficient in the thing. They are all of a type. There's really no reason you need to separate them if you don't want to.

We want more "Strength skills"? Realize then that melee attacks with every single weapon are each a "strength skill". Need a Constitution skill all about surviving long-distance fatigue, like 'Endurance'? That's what the Constitution Saving Throw is. It's the 'Endurance' skill under a different name. But the mechanics of both are exactly the same-- roll a d20, add your CON modifier, and if you have some experience dealing with long-distance fatigue you add your proficiency bonus. What else is there to need?

Other than of course many people's desire for all the little boxes to be named and organized the same way because it "looks nicer". The 'Constitution Saving Throw' skill does not roll off the tongue as nice as the 'Endurance' skill, nor is it in the long skill list section of the character sheet... so some people just don't like that. But that doesn't mean the game needs to change because of that.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

BUT... what if we streamlined the game by changing the saving throws to actually refer to the things they are saving against! We could make them against things like, I don't know... dragon's breath is a pretty common thing in games, so that's one. Maybe paralyzation? And some of the magic items, like wands, staffs and rods, although it would make it better if we combined those into one, I guess...

I know this is a TSR era joke, but it could work... "Save vs spell, Save vs Breath Weapon and Save vs knock around" all sound desent, but I will raise you mixing 3e and 4e... have no AC, but a Reflex defense, a Toughness Defense, and a Mental Defense BUT also have a Fort Save and a Will Save.

 

[RealAlHazred]

I know this is a TSR era joke, but it could work... "Save vs spell, Save vs Breath Weapon and Save vs knock around" all sound desent, but I will raise you mixing 3e and 4e... have no AC, but a Reflex defense, a Toughness Defense, and a Mental Defense BUT also have a Fort Save and a Will Save.

I really kind of liked the Defenses, for the exact reason given -- it moved more rolls into the hands of the players.

Also, even back in the day there were plenty of homebrew rules around for AD&D 1st edition that consolidated or moved around saving throws. The original save values were a little arbitrary, and the categories were chosen for specific situations, so shifting them to more general situations made sense.

In my own games, I "smoothed" saving throws to distribute a little more evenly, instead of jumping by "2" every few levels.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'd really like the return of skill points. I really miss the customizability and ability to have a larger body of knowledge/skill at the expense of reducing capability in certain aspects.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I'd really like the return of skill points.

I don't miss skill points, but I miss that it was a smooth method to give value to Int (higher Int = extra skill points, lower Int = get less, to a minimum of 1 per level). Nothing that'd get people to put their high score into it, but enough of an effect that a whole range of values were reasonable considerations for most characters.

I remember calculating how much Int I needed to get the skills I wanted on a non-Rogue (or, how to fit that Rogue level in there at the right time, to let you dump a bunch of skill points at once to again max out skills that have started lagging behind).

Of course, it had the issue that Wizards max Int anyway, here's a bunch of freebie skill points to go with your cosmic power.

 

[Scott Christian]

IMO it would be better to have one skill (or, as I suggested, proficiency in social groups), and move the Intimidate/Persuade distinction to the other side of the screen - published adventures should do a better job of calling out that NPCs react differently to different approaches. The DMG should also provide similar guidance too, for people to fail to read.

I know in all my writeups, especially with important NPCs, I have the approach the character (or group) takes, and then the DC is set based on the approach. Some people refuse to be intimidated while others cower at the slightest pressure. For most of these NPCs, I think their description or profession make it obvious, but sometimes there are twists due to a backstory the PCs know nothing about.

But, overall I think it is a fair approach.

 

[Scott Christian]

At what point do we stop to admit that d&d is not a single player game so its skill system needs to serve the needs of someone other than the player of "my character"? People like other players at the table or even the GM's needs. The 5e skill system crashes hard for those other groups & there is a pretty good post up on the alexandrian about it.

I think your first statement counters your second. As far as the write up is concerned, there are so many conditional statements in the argument regarding the "Skill List." His points on bounded accuracy and the swing are somewhat true, but the skill list itself is very weak.

 

[Emberashh]

At what point do we stop to admit that d&d is not a single player game so its skill system needs to serve the needs of someone other than the player of "my character"? People like other players at the table or even the GM's needs. The 5e skill system crashes hard for those other groups & there is a pretty good post up on the alexandrian about it.

Over in Reddit land people would get really damn confused when I would say that DND isn't a competition.

A lot of people, at least online, do not recognize that the game isn't about being the specialest snowflake and that its the party as a group that matters.

Plenty the game does (like martial/caster issues) definitely doesn't help emphasize that, but at the end of the day its still ultimately an attitude and playstyle issue.

 

[Minigiant]

The 5e Skill system crashes hard because it was designed around a core very of old school play and settings under assumptions that stopped being popular in the 1980s.

I mean the ODND playtest started with 3 unified spell and people like myself automatically knew the issue of Clerics having access to Paladin smites. The designers even today didn't ponder immediately the idea of a high Str cleric casting smite spells.

The 5e skill system breaks down because the designers only envisioned an ultratraditionalist playstyle.
I mean we havent even playtested Dungeons nor Dragons yet for 5.5e. We barely did so in DNDN playtest as well.

How can a skill system that was barely tested at the original Background playtest in the earlystage of DNDN playtest match 2023 D&D?

 

[Davinshe]

The 5e Skill system crashes hard because it was designed around a core very of old school play and settings under assumptions that stopped being popular in the 1980s.

I mean the ODND playtest started with 3 unified spell and people like myself automatically knew the issue of Clerics having access to Paladin smites. The designers even today didn't ponder immediately the idea of a high Str cleric casting smite spells.

The 5e skill system breaks down because the designers only envisioned an ultratraditionalist playstyle.
I mean we havent even playtested Dungeons nor Dragons yet for 5.5e. We barely did so in DNDN playtest as well.

How can a skill system that was barely tested at the original Background playtest in the earlystage of DNDN playtest match 2023 D&D?

I'm dubious of this contention, considering that a true skill system really only came about in the 2000's with 3rd edition. Still, I'd be interested in the specific 1980's play assumptions to which you are referring.

 

[tetrasodium]

The 5e Skill system crashes hard because it was designed around a core very of old school play and settings under assumptions that stopped being popular in the 1980s.

I mean the ODND playtest started with 3 unified spell and people like myself automatically knew the issue of Clerics having access to Paladin smites. The designers even today didn't ponder immediately the idea of a high Str cleric casting smite spells.

The 5e skill system breaks down because the designers only envisioned an ultratraditionalist playstyle.
I mean we havent even playtested Dungeons nor Dragons yet for 5.5e. We barely did so in DNDN playtest as well.

How can a skill system that was barely tested at the original Background playtest in the earlystage of DNDN playtest match 2023 D&D?

I think that it goes further than "stopped being popular in the 80's". The designers envisioned ultratriaditionalist players yea, but they didn't build the rules for that playstyle. In 5e's skill system there is a design assumption that making it barebones enough will create that old style of player describes an intent ->gm looks at the PC's build/role in the world & does whatever seems reasonable if justified... Then on the player side they just build a less granular & easier to game reimagining of the 3.x skill system to avoid any need for the "player describes intent" or "if justified" steps.

That loop happened in the older editions because the skill system was basically whatever the GM said it was. It worked when the GM said no or "no but/because/if" because often it was a thing that was a thing that was only possible if the GM extended the system to allow it. Now in 5e the players come to the whole interaction with a concrete mechanical footing that means any form of no or bar raising from the GM is taking away something the player has been told by the rules that they can do

 

[Minigiant]

I'm dubious of this contention, considering that a true skill system really only came about in the 2000's with 3rd edition. Still, I'd be interested in the specific 1980's play assumptions to which you are referring.

That's the point.

As @tetrasodium stated, the OS the skill system was basically whatever the GM said it was. And what are the only skills that have core clear rules of what they do

1. Stealth
2. Perception
3. Dexterity checks with thieves tools
4. Medicine

Everything else was basically whatever the GM said it was. You could play 5e core and ignore every skill or tool but those "4". They were the only skills with hard core mechanics. Everything else was optional, variant, or in the DMG. Nothing else had core mechanics, DCs, or obstacles.

This mean the skill list could be anything because outsideof these 4, everything was determined by the DM.