How would you change skills in 5.5e

[Minigiant]

Hmmm...how do you know?

I mean, we can agree that the game has been incredibly successful. It is possible that this success is despite it failing in an important way that, as you claim, "the majority of the customer base wants." So much so that it "breaks" the game.

Might I suggest that another, stronger possibility, is that what you want and what the customer base wants is not the same thing, and most do not consider the game broken?

Success /= Quality or Functioning

When 6e comes out, if we are alive for it, we will name the things that 6e does better, what 5e screwed up, and sing praises of things when "always wanted" in 5e that is in 6e.

And didn't say the 5e skill system breaks the game. I said it "breaks". If they are common things that the customer wants to use within the skill system and the skill system can't perform it without halting it, it broke and has to fixed by the DM. If this happens a lot because the system wasn't designed for something fanbase expected to do or create often, the system broke.

The whole TCOE customization zones are an example of a broken system being fixed by the designers because the fanbase wanted something in lore and mechanics that the designers didn't expect they wanted and didn't build into the system.

I definitely don't want anything like the skill system that you describe.

I don't think you know the skill system I describe.

I've mostly only posted hypotheticals to questions asked or possible backwards compatible options.

 

[SteveC]

Your listed step 4 does not exist

This is a thread about what we would change about the 5E skill system, so of course my way of doing things isn't what is currently done. Emphasis on my way and in my opinion. I think changing it would make for a better game, and I think it would be better in the ways that the designers want the game to go. At the same time, I've no illusions that it's going to actually be adopted.

I admit to being a fiction first sort of person, and that's not D&D. I think it's where the designers want the game to go, but I also know it would be a large change.

Just for the last time: describing what you're doing and how you accomplish it brings the game in more of a fiction first and less mechanical direction. It allows the DM to much more easily model what the players envision their characters doing in terms of the mechanics.

And that's my suggestion and my opinion ... but it's also how a lot of other gamemasters handle things, including ones I take my style from.

 

[Clint_L]

Your post doesn't match the point of my post.

My point was that 80% of 5e players are Millenials or younger but the 5e core skill system was designed with a survey that gave the 20% that are Older than Millenials and preferred fantasy and rpgs styles older than Millenials more than their 20% of representation. Possibly double or even triple it.

Mostly because the 5e survey both had a high bar of acceptance and polled a higher percentage of Gen Xers are older than its current playerbase.

So when 5e blew up, mostly with people under ~43 year old, the playerbase became heavily shifted away from whom it was designed for. And this shift caused a shift of desire of what the fanbase wanted form lore, mechanics, and tools.

And this includes the skill system.

I might even say the 2014 skill system is mostly heavily tolerated more than it is liked, loved, or prefered. It is mostly the lack of competition within D&D's field for 5e's core fanbase ,due to the costs and risks of making a whole new RPG not based on an edition, that a popular houserule hasn't been widely adopted or new game swapped to.

These are hypotheticals. You keep trying to justify your argument by claiming that you have a special insight into what the player base wants. You don't. You are arguing for what you want and then making a lot of assumptions to project your personal opinions onto the player base as if to give your subjective taste wider support. I find this makes your argument hard to follow.

Based on your various suggestions, you seem to be hinting at a desire for a much more detailed skill system. Is that correct?

 

[Minigiant]

These are hypotheticals. You keep trying to justify your argument by claiming that you have a special insight into what the player base wants. You don't. You are arguing for what you want and then making a lot of assumptions to project your personal opinions onto the player base as if to give your subjective taste wider support. I find this makes your argument hard to follow.

What I am saying is by the way 5e was polled and surveyed in its creation, it would be impossible for the skill system to match the desires of the fans playing in 2023.

Based on your various suggestions, you seem to be hinting at a desire for a much more detailed skill system. Is that correct?

That would be incorrect.

My issue is not not lack of detail. My suggestion would be a focus on clarity and focus on what the audience actually does.

 

[overgeeked]

Remove skills entirely. Use ability checks instead. Give proficiency with two ability scores. Match the "skills" ability proficiency with the "saves" ability proficiency. Only use specifically named "skills" for expertise.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Remove skills entirely. Use ability checks instead. Give proficiency with two ability scores. Match the "skills" ability proficiency with the "saves" ability proficiency. Only use specifically named "skills" for expertise.

I'd honestly much rather lose ability scores than skills.

 

[MichaelSomething]

That sounds like Castles & Crusades with extra steps.

Remove skills entirely. Use ability checks instead. Give proficiency with two ability scores. Match the "skills" ability proficiency with the "saves" ability proficiency. Only use specifically named "skills" for expertise.

 

[Clint_L]

What I am saying is by the way 5e was polled and surveyed in its creation, it would be impossible for the skill system to match the desires of the fans playing in 2023.

This is a supposition. For example, maybe most of the fans playing in 2023 learned on or prefer 5e, so its skill system makes perfect sense to them. There are still folks who swear by THACO.

So it’s not impossible. I happen to dislike the 5e skill system but I don’t see a lot of widespread rebellion against it, nor did WotC flag it as a problem in their surveys. So I suspect most folks are fine with it.

Neither of us can know, but to claim that it is impossible for the player base (however that is defined) to think differently than you does not help your argument, IMO.

That would be incorrect.

My issue is not not lack of detail. My suggestion would be a focus on clarity and focus on what the audience actually does.

So…more clarity but not more detail? Can you give an example? I have argued that there need to be fewer skills and they shouldn’t be tied to ability scores. I think there should be significantly less detail.

 

[Minigiant]

This is a supposition. For example, maybe most of the fans playing in 2023 learned on or prefer 5e, so its skill system makes perfect sense to them. There are still folks who swear by THACO.

So it’s not impossible. I happen to dislike the 5e skill system but I don’t see a lot of widespread rebellion against it, nor did WotC flag it as a problem in their surveys. So I suspect most folks are fine with it.

Neither of us can know, but to claim that it is impossible for the player base (however that is defined) to think differently than you does not help your argument, IMO.

Like I said in earlier posts, there isn't much to compare the 5e skill system against that is popular enough.

5e like most editions of D&D, benefits from the fan base not knowing about many other games or editions to compare to. So the only time when 5e's audience would see heavy criticism openly would be at the 4e->5e conversion.

It's sort of how people complain about something for 5e and ask for a solution and it exists in the 5e DMG. The designers openly say this happens and are designing the DMG because of this.

The "nobody is complaining" thing isn't true. People have complained so much that the designers are reordering the DMG so people can find what they are looking for. There are people making Youtube careers pointing out stuff in the DMG and posting personal houserules.

So…more clarity but not more detail? Can you give an example? I have argued that there need to be fewer skills and they shouldn’t be tied to ability scores. I think there should be significantly less detail.

Clarity:
For example bending a bar, lifting a gate, breaking a door, or toppling a item is not an Ahletics check RAW. Those are "other Strength checks". So a STR based fighter, the PC you'd think and traditionally would would be getting better at those things, does not add their profiecency modifier to a STR check to topple a statue. Nor can they take a skill and train themselves to do so. These are common actions PCs perform.

So either add bend/break/lift/topple to Athletics as RAW or add a new skill that does it.

Focus:
Which gets down to the other aspect: focus on what players and DMs do and want.

Going back to the clarity example, if the basic rules fighter is a basic STR fighter: That fighter needs to be able to do things with their STR outside of combat. The "Fighter is good at combat so its should be poor at out of combat rolls" is no a mentally of 5e tables. There is ony one strength skill and it doesn't even cover all STR checks.

Expand Athletics? Add a skill? Remove skills and give Ability Score proficiency like you suggested? Choose one. But the current one doesn''t match the mentality of current 5e tables.

 

[Professor Murder]

Combine Animal Handling, Nature, and Survival into a single skill
Create a ride/pilot skill
Increase the skill floor of the classes that get only 2 skills like Fighters to 3.
Get rid of languages. Replace with linguistics skill.

 

[mhd]

Going back to the clarity example, if the basic rules fighter is a basic STR fighter: That fighter needs to be able to do things with their STR outside of combat.

Is there a chance we'll get outside of this increasing focus on characters mostly depending on one ability? I guess this would be hard to fix if one would just concentrate on the skill system, as everywhere else it's perfectly fine to base everything you do regularly on CHA/INT/WIS etc.

Or are we talking about "needs to be able to do things, and be the BEST at it"? That's slightly different, as even with a "secondary focus" (INT for the tactical fighter, CHA for the leader etc.), you'll have people in your party who are better at that than you. But assuming the fighter is the best at STR, they could get more spotlight with non/combat skills/actions based on that.

I'm just not sure we could do that without redefining the meaning of e.g. STR and CON…

 

[tetrasodium]

Is there a chance we'll get outside of this increasing focus on characters mostly depending on one ability? I guess this would be hard to fix if one would just concentrate on the skill system, as everywhere else it's perfectly fine to base everything you do regularly on CHA/INT/WIS etc.

Or are we talking about "needs to be able to do things, and be the BEST at it"? That's slightly different, as even with a "secondary focus" (INT for the tactical fighter, CHA for the leader etc.), you'll have people in your party who are better at that than you. But assuming the fighter is the best at STR, they could get more spotlight with non/combat skills/actions based on that.

I'm just not sure we could do that without redefining the meaning of e.g. STR and CON…

5e (maybe 4e?) Kinda created a that focus to a not insignificant degree. Back in 2e you didn't really have skills or get +/-1 till like 15 &6, attributes obviously mattered a lot less as a result. In 3.x everyone needed some int for skill points and a ton of PCs needed a few points in this or that skill to meet the prerequisites on various feats/PrCs. 4e was 4e... But 5e keeps the 12&8 threshold and enough defined skills of 3.5 while doing away with all of the reasons and mechanics to make skills for non-primary abilities matter. Gms wind up expected to fight the very situation 5e encourages players to charge against while doing (or omitting) everything it can to ensure it really doesn't matter even when done

 

[Minigiant]

Is there a chance we'll get outside of this increasing focus on characters mostly depending on one ability? I guess this would be hard to fix if one would just concentrate on the skill system, as everywhere else it's perfectly fine to base everything you do regularly on CHA/INT/WIS etc.

Or are we talking about "needs to be able to do things, and be the BEST at it"? That's slightly different, as even with a "secondary focus" (INT for the tactical fighter, CHA for the leader etc.), you'll have people in your party who are better at that than you. But assuming the fighter is the best at STR, they could get more spotlight with non/combat skills/actions based on that.

I'm just not sure we could do that without redefining the meaning of e.g. STR and CON…

It's more that I said how a STR based fighter can barely leverage their Strength and level to overcome more difficult obstacles. Or a CHA or INT secondary fighter.

It's like @tetrasodium said, other editions had built in design, class features, or subsystems to make their skill systems act the way the designers and fans wanted. 5e due to it's low bonuses, small skill list, and reliance on DM interpretation, characters who lack expertise or a matching ability-skill combo and just throwing up d20s and running on luck rather than being "good" at anything.

What is a total +2 to a DC 15. You are just throwing dice and pleading to a higher power. So players end up working hard to use their +6s and +7s over their piddly +2s and +1s.

And this is where the "I want to use Intimidation with Strength" keep getting repeated.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It's more that I said how a STR based fighter can barely leverage their Strength and level to overcome more difficult obstacles. Or a CHA or INT secondary fighter.

It's like @tetrasodium said, other editions had built in design, class features, or subsystems to make their skill systems act the way the designers and fans wanted. 5e due to it's low bonuses, small skill list, and reliance on DM interpretation, characters who lack expertise or a matching ability-skill combo and just throwing up d20s and running on luck rather than being "good" at anything.

What is a total +2 to a DC 15. You are just throwing dice and pleading to a higher power. So players end up working hard to use their +6s and +7s over their piddly +2s and +1s.

And this is where the "I want to use Intimidation with Strength" keep getting repeated.

this is why i think expertise (and single proficiency reliable talent) ought to be more available in the skill system rather than being consigned to a few specific classes and feats, if you factor in expertise as part of the standard DC target difficulty curve it helps reduce the swingyness of the d20 roll being such a massive part of your result, expert classes are still going to get more expertise than everyone else but more classes get to dip their toes into the deep end of skill checks without only relying on a gamble and a prayer.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's more that I said how a STR based fighter can barely leverage their Strength and level to overcome more difficult obstacles. Or a CHA or INT secondary fighter.

I don't agree with this point, because it assumes the player is playing with an unthinking Dungeon Master who doesn't put any effort into determining DCs and it just selecting them by rote... basically nothing more than computer game.

Any DM with a knowledge of the game (and I think we can all agree that DMs should be learning the game they are running) knows that a skill check will normally give a PC 2-6 higher points than an ability check alone (the proficiency bonus). The DM can take this into account when they set a DC for a check. An ability check that does not have an applicable skill attached can have a different DC given to it than a skill check for which a proficiency could be applied.

A climbing check that would be STR (Athletics)? The DM could make it DC 15. A bend bars check for which it would be STR alone? DC 12. And this ability for DMs to select DCs as appropriate for their tables is the hallmark of the game (in my opnion.)

You know who are the people who don't like this though? Those players out there who keep wishing for a much larger chart of DCs that cover almost every single thing there possibly is to do. As though the thought is that the world has a set definition for what doing every single thing is for every character across every single campaign across every single setting. They want and need a "universal system" of Difficulty Classes.

But to me... that just removes any need for a Dungeon Master! At that point yeah, you could just use a computer. "Climb a 17 foot wall with 1/2 inch handholds one hour before sunrise after a light rain in October on the south side of the cliff face..." tick tick tick... modifier modifier modifier... checking... checking... checking... DING! DC 18.75."

That game is in my opinion a waste of time. Instead... an actual thinking DM can just look at the baseline chart of DCs... decide what the action ultimate is in the gradient of easy-moderate-hard-very hard... know whether they are asking for an ability check by itself or an ability check with possible skill application... and then just select a DC out of thin air that they think might best fit. And it doesn't have to be any sort of "exact", because the check is going to come and go immediately after its rolled and will forgotten about 10 seconds from now once the story progresses past that point anyway. So what the DC was will not be remembered and not be concerned about after that... so why go nutso trying to create the perfect one?

 

[Minigiant]

I don't agree with this point, because it assumes the player is playing with an unthinking Dungeon Master who doesn't put any effort into determining DCs and it just selecting them by rote... basically nothing more than computer game.

But that's RAW

Any DM with a knowledge of the game (and I think we can all agree that DMs should be learning the game they are running) knows that a skill check will normally give a PC 2-6 higher points than an ability check alone (the proficiency bonus). The DM can take this into account when they set a DC for a check. An ability check that does not have an applicable skill attached can have a different DC given to it than a skill check for which a proficiency could be applied.

A climbing check that would be STR (Athletics)? The DM could make it DC 15. A bend bars check for which it would be STR alone? DC 12. And this ability for DMs to select DCs as appropriate for their tables is the hallmark of the game (in my opnion.)

That's not RAW.

If this should be the rules then it should have been the rule.

The assumption should be that DMs use the rules and alter when the rules hit rare times where it doesn't work.

If the DM altering the rule is default, then the rule does not work.

 

[CreamCloud0]

But to me... that just removes any need for a Dungeon Master! At that point yeah, you could just use a computer. "Climb a 17 foot wall with 1/2 inch handholds one hour before sunrise after a light rain in October on the south side of the cliff face..." tick tick tick... modifier modifier modifier... checking... checking... checking... DING! DC 18.75."

is this really so different to "Attack a bandit in Half-Plate with 12 dex, wearing a Shield, Defense fighting style, No Flanking... Not Prone... tick tick tick... modifier modifier modifier... checking... checking... checking... DING! AC 19."

or should we be improvising stats for enemies on a gradient of easy-moderate-hard-very hard too?

 

[shadowoflameth]

Medicine: The big one, by a large margin. Occasionally this acts as a sort of knowledge: biology or autopsy skill but even a DM actively looking to make it relevant has a hard time finding uses for this. If this is going to stick around, it probably needs to actually interact with hit points in some way, perhaps by allowing some limited use of healing surges outside of a short rest.

Perform: We do not need instrument proficiency and this skill. Moreover, performing on an instrument is too niche to be worth it. If you dig a little, it becomes clear that this skill at minimum is also meant to cover acting giving it some overlap with deception.
My solution would be to replace this with an "Impress" skill that is used whenever you wish to affect an NPC's attitude or emotions. Performing an instrument then just becomes one particular way to impress someone.

Intimidate: Perhaps it ought not be so, but Intimidate is just a worse form of persuasion -- most DM's instinctively treat this skill as riskier to use than persuasion, and seldom create situations where Intimidate can work when persuasion can not. This skill could be rolled into the above "Impress" skill.

Animal Handling: Too niche. I suppose this can be rolled into knowledge nature. Technically this could still be a charisma check, though very few DM's seem to make use of alternate attributes on a skill check.

Investigation: Part of me wants to go back to calling this "search" like in 3rd, just because when something is an investigation or a perception check seems an endless source of confusion for new DM's.

Streetwise | Gather Information: I'm not sure why this skill was dropped from earlier editions. Next to persuasion / diplomacy, this used to be one of the most common social skill checks I'd ask for at my table.

Thieves' Tools, Disguise Kit: It's not good for some tool proficiencies to be mostly background flavor and others to be regularly useful during adventuring.

Most of the complaints I see center around skills either not regularly being useful or being poorly defined as they are written. Perception and Investigation can be part of the same thing. If they are not, then Investigation should have a specific use that perception doesn't cover (directly examining something). Animal Handling is niche but if you're mounted becomes better. Perform can include proficiency with an instrument or a particular kind of performance. Medicine should interact with the changes being proposed to dying. i.e. a medicine check can make you 1hp. and still unconscious, give you a successful save against disease or poison, etc. Intimidate can just be one of the things that Persuasion can do. Most tool proficiencies need to be a lot more useful or thieves tools will continue to be the only one that many players want.

 

[Minigiant]

You know who are the people who don't like this though? Those players out there who keep wishing for a much larger chart of DCs that cover almost every single thing there possibly is to do. As though the thought is that the world has a set definition for what doing every single thing is for every character across every single campaign across every single setting. They want and need a "universal system" of Difficulty Classes.

But to me... that just removes any need for a Dungeon Master! At that point yeah, you could just use a computer. "Climb a 17 foot wall with 1/2 inch handholds one hour before sunrise after a light rain in October on the south side of the cliff face..." tick tick tick... checking... checking... checking... DING! DC 18."

I don't think many asking for this.

The issue is that the designers chose bounded accuracy but made the DCs too high because they didn't realize high ACs and high DC are treated differently.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't agree with this point, because it assumes the player is playing with an unthinking Dungeon Master who doesn't put any effort into determining DCs and it just selecting them by rote... basically nothing more than computer game.

Any DM with a knowledge of the game (and I think we can all agree that DMs should be learning the game they are running) knows that a skill check will normally give a PC 2-6 higher points than an ability check alone (the proficiency bonus). The DM can take this into account when they set a DC for a check. An ability check that does not have an applicable skill attached can have a different DC given to it than a skill check for which a proficiency could be applied.

A climbing check that would be STR (Athletics)? The DM could make it DC 15. A bend bars check for which it would be STR alone? DC 12. And this ability for DMs to select DCs as appropriate for their tables is the hallmark of the game (in my opnion.)

You know who are the people who don't like this though? Those players out there who keep wishing for a much larger chart of DCs that cover almost every single thing there possibly is to do. As though the thought is that the world has a set definition for what doing every single thing is for every character across every single campaign across every single setting. They want and need a "universal system" of Difficulty Classes.

But to me... that just removes any need for a Dungeon Master! At that point yeah, you could just use a computer. "Climb a 17 foot wall with 1/2 inch handholds one hour before sunrise after a light rain in October on the south side of the cliff face..." tick tick tick... modifier modifier modifier... checking... checking... checking... DING! DC 18.75."

That game is in my opinion a waste of time. Instead... an actual thinking DM can just look at the baseline chart of DCs... decide what the action ultimate is in the gradient of easy-moderate-hard-very hard... know whether they are asking for an ability check by itself or an ability check with possible skill application... and then just select a DC out of thin air that they think might best fit. And it doesn't have to be any sort of "exact", because the check is going to come and go immediately after its rolled and will forgotten about 10 seconds from now once the story progresses past that point anyway. So what the DC was will not be remembered and not be concerned about after that... so why go nutso trying to create the perfect one?

Have you not read the dmg, specifically page 238 where they still have a DC ladder? 5e removed the subsystem that allows the gm and players to agree on how DCs should be set and adjusted. That didn't get rid of the example DC list, it just made it so no table uses a similar method to adjust it & that the table itself is incapable of even carrying PC abilities.

As noted, the DC table you disparage exists in 5ebut it only serves one purpose now. That purpose is to give RAW justification for why a player will feel justified at being outraged enough to bully the GM into stepping back should the GM actually "put any effort into determining DCs" as you note. Worse still the frayed remnants fail on both sides of the GM screen with literally any single instance of advantage or disadvantage nullifying any hypothetically infinite number of reasons why the other should be present.... That nullification only works if mary sue & GM's girlfriend style results are the primary design goal.

For good measure they even put that DC scale on PHB 174 to ensure that the players know without question that the GM is making up new DCs if the GM dares to "put any effort into determining DCs".