D&D 5E I want skills decoupled from stats. Suggestions?

[bid]

I said that a system that only depended on proficiency was not granular enough.

Well, you understood wrong. I'll be less ambiguous then.

You don't want a "0 or 0+proficiency" bonus, you want a finer resolution. You want to do "X or X+proficiency" where X can be something else than zero, not linked to stats, and different for every skill.


Now, if you go with the 2x 3x idea, you only have 2 values for X: either 0 or proficiency. You don't get a finer resolution but at least you get an extra level (0p, 1p, 2p). So a 0-expert is just as good as a P-proficient.

 

[Blue]

So I guess I want to ask, why do so many think a skill point buy would be overly complex and take too long?

Just for me, it's diminishing returns. As I mentioned, I expect that in general I'll see characters with some skills that are their main they want maxed, some other skills, and then some things they don't suck just in case. And then the rest. I don't really see people specifically searching out gradations between these, so having a more granular system doesn't really add value, and could subtract value if some players, not familiar with it, try to spread out too thin and end up barely competent.

So a streamlined system that gives just the shades of competency people most want and is also hard to unintentionally mess up is what I suggest.

 

[ccs]

To everyone,

Maybe we need to have a brief discussion about why everyone didn't like 3e skills.

I didn't like the 3e skill system either but it may have been more a matter of implementation than anything else. What reasons does everyone have for disliking that system. Are those same reasons going to apply to the system I proposed or is it just that my proposoal resembles something you disliked before even though the actual reasons you dislike the 3e skill system may not apply to my proposal?

I despised that certain classes got many more skill points than others. And I don't like it here in 5e either.
Everyone should recieve x pts & then bonuses for high Int scores.

Beyond that? I'm lazy. I really hate fiddling about assigning pts & adjusting my sheet skill wise every time I lv up. I don't know how many times I've discovered I'd missed a pt somewhere.

As the DM? I REALLY hate assigning a DC to things. Because like I said, I'm lazy.
I'm all for just rolling your stat or less in order to succeed like we do in 1e. But that doesn't work too well in a system where your scores can rise infinitely beyond a d20.


As for your system? Yes, I think my dislike of fiddliness applies to it.

 

[FrogReaver]

I despised that certain classes got many more skill points than others. And I don't like it here in 5e either.
Everyone should recieve x pts & then bonuses for high Int scores.

Beyond that? I'm lazy. I really hate fiddling about assigning pts & adjusting my sheet skill wise every time I lv up. I don't know how many times I've discovered I'd missed a pt somewhere.

As the DM? I REALLY hate assigning a DC to things. Because like I said, I'm lazy.
I'm all for just rolling your stat or less in order to succeed like we do in 1e. But that doesn't work too well in a system where your scores can rise infinitely beyond a d20.


As for your system? Yes, I think my dislike of fiddliness applies to it.

I see. If you don't really like how 5e handles skills then you shouldn't like my system either. So that's not much of a surprise. Thanks for the input.

For everyone else: Just so everyone is clear, My system isn't going to have skill points every level. All you will get is just 2 or 3 skill points on levels that you take an ASI.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just for me, it's diminishing returns. As I mentioned, I expect that in general I'll see characters with some skills that are their main they want maxed, some other skills, and then some things they don't suck just in case. And then the rest. I don't really see people specifically searching out gradations between these, so having a more granular system doesn't really add value, and could subtract value if some players, not familiar with it, try to spread out too thin and end up barely competent.

So a streamlined system that gives just the shades of competency people most want and is also hard to unintentionally mess up is what I suggest.

I see. I guess I view 5e's gradations as being pretty established (-1 to +5 typically). That's 7 or 8 under typical circumstances compared to your 4. Does such additional gradation really add value? Probably not. However, the simple + and - system of D&D is pretty ingrained and so I thought it was better to stick with that than anything else. So I'm with you that if the intent was to design a totally new system that 4ish gradations is probably the best. It's just D&D carries a lot of baggage that I don't think any of us are totally ready to see removed. So even when a system would otherwise be worse, if a similar enough system exists that can accommodate D&D's baggage then I'd typically rather do that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Too fine grain with no benefit. In practice, you maxed out skills or they weren't relevant. Knowledge skills were a possible exception.

I actually rather like the 5E skill system. It has the right level of granularity, thanks to bounded accuracy and the proficiency bonus mechanic. At the same time, there are enough options to avoid a samey-samey feel, especially with ability scores included.

Here's something I learned while figuring out Fate, though: There's not much to be gained from having both a skill system and a stat system. They can actually work against one another. About the only system I know of that does it well is the Storyteller (WoD) system. Generally, a system should pick one and, at best, allow the other to modify it. I'd actually go so far as to say that it's even better if you just pick one.

In that light, I'm going to offer the idea that D&D 5E didn't actually have a skill system. It has a stat system with a thin layer of bonuses over the top of it. This perspective actually makes 5E very reasonable.

I agree with a lot in this post. I'm not trying to say 5e's system isn't reasonable. It is. But it isn't as flexible as I'd like it and that's because it's layered approach takes too many options off the table for me.

Additionally I think d&d is actually probably a little more granular than I'd like. 7 or 8 different tiers in skills is to much IMO but that level of granularity has been a thing in D&D for about as long as D&D has been a thing and so I kind of expect that part and am willing to roll with it.

I also agree that 3e had the max or don't bother mentality because of it's lack of bounded accuracy and total number of skill options.. I think 5e has about the right number of options and bounded accuracy and those to design principles would allow a skill point system to thrive in 5e while avoiding most of the pitfalls of a 3e system.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm just homing in on this one line. I think I've caught all your goals. Sorry, if not. Here's my thought:

Constraints:
* Still needs to work with bounded accuracy
* That means proficiency bonus + something on par with stats
* Try not to keep this as a plug-and-play module instead of rewriting a bunch of other stuff
* Personal preference: Skill points in 3E would be a step backwards. Avoid those. YMMV.

With those in mind, here's some implementation ideas:
* Group skills into a handful of categories: Social (intimidate, persuasion, intuition, deception, etc.), exploration (survival, investigation, animal handling), knowledge (history, religion, nature, medicine), cunning (stealth, sleight of hand, perception), and physical (acrobatics, athletics).
* Each class has "Affinities" for certain categories. Some classes may have "minor Affinities" in a category.
* Rogue might get Affinity with Cunning and Physical, with minor Affinity for Social. (Or pick two of the three for full Affinity and the third is Minor.)
* Rangers might get Affinity with Physical and Exploration, with minor in Cunning
* For single-classed characters, an Affinity essentially adds a bonus equal to the Proficiency bonus. Minor Affinity grants half this value. (Design note: this should be roughly in line with the primary and secondary ability score bonuses, math-wise. At least enough to be balanced and decoupled.)
* For multi-class characters, we treat it a little like multi-classed casters:
* Create an Affinity table that pretty much looks exactly like the Proficiency bonus advancement.
* Classes with Affinity add their levels together to determine the character's Affinity bonus.
* Classes with Minor Affinity add half their level to determine Affinity bonus.
* Classes with no Affinity don't count.

Design note: Why use categories? Because not doing so would be redundant with selecting proficiencies. By grouping them into categories, characters can have an affinity for something in which they're essentially untrained. This allows for greater variation in characters.

Alternate system for avoiding categories:
* All classes grant affinity for all skills listed as options for Proficiency.
* It may be appropriate to refine this list into full and Minor Affinities, potentially expanding the circle of skills.

Well, the only issue I see is that this system would tie what skills you could actually be an expert in to your class. That's just another way of removing the flexibility I'm looking for. Without that flexibility I don't really see the point. Why go through the effort of decoupling skills from stats only to then couple them to class?

Could the core fear of my proposal be that yall are afraid that players will still flock to the max or dump skill allocation if we don't enforce something else?

 

[schnee]

1. I don't understand how that critique applies to my proposal because I'm proposing to keep proficiency exactly the same. It's the stat bonus to skills that the "free form" component will replace. Then again my "free form" component isn't compleltely free form as it has a number of restriction on it. So why argue against a completlely free form system?

Yeah, looking again, I misread it. Ignore the parts about bounded accuracy. My bad.

This is what I reacted to (and went off on a wrong tangent):

Instead of stat bonus to skills you would get maybe 20-30 skill points to set your skills however you wanted. All skills would start at -2 and you could spend skill points on them until they reach +3 base

The whole 'skills start at -2' and spending those points in such an open way at creation is what triggered that. It's a very 3E mechanic. Nothing in 5E acts like that. It's an aesthetic reaction, really - it feels like an older system being bodged in, like all those reactionary RPG systems in the 80's that felt too constricted by D&D's strong 'class based' characters and made things that were infinitely customizable. Again, not saying it's bad, just an odd fit.

I can't say my feedback is that useful unless I offer constructive suggestions, but I'll put it this way: we've developed some house rules for my 5E game, and it took a few tries before they felt right alongside the rest of the PHB.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, looking again, I misread it. Ignore the parts about bounded accuracy. My bad.

This is what I reacted to (and went off on a wrong tangent):



The whole 'skills start at -2' and spending those points in such an open way at creation is what triggered that. It's a very 3E mechanic. Nothing in 5E acts like that. It's an aesthetic reaction, really - it feels like an older system being bodged in, like all those reactionary RPG systems in the 80's that felt too constricted by D&D's strong 'class based' characters and made things that were infinitely customizable. Again, not saying it's bad, just an odd fit.

I can't say my feedback is that useful unless I offer constructive suggestions, but I'll put it this way: we've developed some house rules for my 5E game, and it took a few tries before they felt right alongside the rest of the PHB.

Well I would actually say that Stat Point buy acts exactly like what you are on about here. It's just not for skills specifically because stat bonuses affect more than skills. That said I strongly support class based systems. I strongly dislike the notion of attempting to do away with classes in favor of a "buy" all your abilities type system. In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to D&D with classes skills and out of combat abilities more baked into the class itself and many more classes altogether but that's not the system they created for 5e.

However, I think if a class is little more than a chasis for combat abilities like most D&D 5e classes are then I don't think it's to much to ask for that class to be able to actually be good at whatever skills it's allowed to pursue. As it stands right now a fighter that wants to be good at animal handling and be persuasive and be good at history can't exist and still be good at fighting.

 

[Blue]

I see. I guess I view 5e's gradations as being pretty established (-1 to +5 typically). That's 7 or 8 under typical circumstances compared to your 4. Does such additional gradation really add value? Probably not. However, the simple + and - system of D&D is pretty ingrained and so I thought it was better to stick with that than anything else. So I'm with you that if the intent was to design a totally new system that 4ish gradations is probably the best. It's just D&D carries a lot of baggage that I don't think any of us are totally ready to see removed. So even when a system would otherwise be worse, if a similar enough system exists that can accommodate D&D's baggage then I'd typically rather do that.

I was splitting more along the level of intentions. The gradations in value where this stat gives +1 vs. this a +0 doesn't really make much difference numerically. Which is also why I would avoid asking players to manage it at that level.

Actually, not for any version of D&D but if I was designing an RPG that used something like ability scores, I wouldn't have +1 or +2s (going with D& 5e scaling). It's not interesting enough. How often do you define a character on "I'm slightly more personable then the average person". I would have a "big focus", one or two "focus", and a "weakness". Let characters be definied by the notable, and if it doesn't help with that don't sweat it.