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

[Ovinomancer]

Here's my issue with your suggestion: it creates a strange narrative place where the 24 STR Barbarian not trained in athletics and who didn't put his points there wonders why he loses at arm-wrestling to the 4 STR (rolled, of course) Wizard who is trained in athletics and spent his points there. By decoupling, you've created a system that requires the expenditure of points on the physical skills to replicate the effects of stats. Failing to do so creates situations that don't make sense in the fiction (very strong people unable to effectively compete at strength related tasks with very weak people). This means that the physically gifted character archetypes have mandatory spending in your system.

I agree your system addresses some of the wonkiness with mental skills -- where some people are just good at skill group without generally high intelligence, but those kinds of outliers might be better served by a feat rather than a rewrite of the skill system.

Something like:

Feat: Savant

When you take this feat, choose a skill.
1) You gain expertise with this skill.
2). You may replace the associated stat bonus for this skill with a flat +3.

You may take this feat multiple times, but must choose a different skill each time.

SPECIAL: you may take this feat at character creation, even if you do not qualify to take a feat. In this case, you only gain the second benefit of this feat.

 

[Satyrn]

Well if you dislike point buy then of course you would dislike my proposal. Can we at least agree it's on basically the same level of fiddlyness as point buy?

Just curious, when you use an array method do you prefer to get to choose between a few slightly different arrays or for everyone to use the same exact array?

It's always been everyone using the same array.

 

[thethain]

I know you said you wanted to decouple, but it would be far easier to allow the player any choice of "reasonable" stat to work with the skill (and is even in the dmg as an option).

So for example, using your strength to intimidate.
Using Intelligence would work with almost any skill : Social skills represents a solid logical argument, physical skills represent knowing the best techniques and training.
Warlocks or bards using Charisma with Arcana as its their innate aspect of magic, similarly clerics and druid could use Wisdom as they observe the phenomena thru their deity.
Wisdom could be used in social situations as you determine the what will resonate with your audience,in physical skills it could notice a flaw that could be exploited.
Con can work for physical skills in situations in which you could just keep at a problem, maybe even intimidate if con represents your stature in some manner.
Charisma in any physical conflict (like athletics trying to grab or shove someone) would work as your actions may make them hesitate, or even against inanimate objects as it might represent your self confidence (which is proven to help in almost any situation).

This allows all players to be Good at whatever they are proficient at, and Not-Terrible at other skills. Without rewriting the book.

 

[FrogReaver]

I know you said you wanted to decouple, but it would be far easier to allow the player any choice of "reasonable" stat to work with the skill (and is even in the dmg as an option).

So for example, using your strength to intimidate.
Using Intelligence would work with almost any skill : Social skills represents a solid logical argument, physical skills represent knowing the best techniques and training.
Warlocks or bards using Charisma with Arcana as its their innate aspect of magic, similarly clerics and druid could use Wisdom as they observe the phenomena thru their deity.
Wisdom could be used in social situations as you determine the what will resonate with your audience,in physical skills it could notice a flaw that could be exploited.
Con can work for physical skills in situations in which you could just keep at a problem, maybe even intimidate if con represents your stature in some manner.
Charisma in any physical conflict (like athletics trying to grab or shove someone) would work as your actions may make them hesitate, or even against inanimate objects as it might represent your self confidence (which is proven to help in almost any situation).

This allows all players to be Good at whatever they are proficient at, and Not-Terrible at other skills. Without rewriting the book.

i use that variant. It doesn't come up often IMO. It also doesn't really allow the kinds of concepts I'm talking about.

 

[Uchawi]

Get rid of attributes altogether (they don't exist) and just use attack, save, AC and skills. For each one you will have to devise a reasonable progression and variance. For races transfer the bonuses to specific skills or set of skills, rinse and repeat for magic items, etc.

 

[Yaarel]

How does one best decouple skills from stats in 5e? My current thought is keeping stats for combat and special ability purposes but eliminating the stat bonus to skills. Proficiency to skills would be handled the same. However, 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 (+5 with proficiency added to it). At each level you take an ASI you would get 2 more skill points that must be placed in different skills. All skills can be raised to +5 by the skill points from ASI's (or +11 total with max proficiency bonus).

Thoughts? Opinions? Suggestions?

Our games normally decouple skills and abilities. The player describes what their character does and how the character does it. This narrative description determines which ability and which skill proficiency apply, if any. The description might also modify the Difficulty Class rating. Some descriptions seem like they would automatically work, gain a bonus, transpire as a typical challenge, incur a disadvantage, or be virtually impossible.

If 5e made it possible to use multiple abilities and multiple skills toward an endeavor, I would do it that way.

 

[Mercule]

i use that variant. It doesn't come up often IMO. It also doesn't really allow the kinds of concepts I'm talking about.

I'm still not entirely clear what concepts you're looking to cover that don't work with the options provided in this thread. You say:

Ultimately I'm willing to sacrifice the few unrealistic possibilities that come up in such a system for the vast number of realistic possibilities that are not allowed by the current coupling of the stat and skill system. I'd rather the players have the option of playing a character that more closely resembles their vision than forcing them into a more restrictive system because someone may create a very atheletic 8 str wizard sometime (and that's assuming that someone somewhere can't think of a good fluff reason for having a low str athletic wizard).

The "realistic" truth is that that Wizard is never going to be as athletic (jumping, for example) as the 18 strength Barbarian -- without a lot of practice (i.e. XP), he's not even going to be as good if the Barbarian relies solely on his raw ability (strength). That actually is realistic, and I think that's why you're not happy with the answers you're getting.

Personally, I think a system that gives someone with Raistlin's physique any chance to outperform Caramon is more than a little questionable.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm still not entirely clear what concepts you're looking to cover that don't work with the options provided in this thread. You say:


The "realistic" truth is that that Wizard is never going to be as athletic (jumping, for example) as the 18 strength Barbarian -- without a lot of practice (i.e. XP), he's not even going to be as good if the Barbarian relies solely on his raw ability (strength). That actually is realistic, and I think that's why you're not happy with the answers you're getting.

Personally, I think a system that gives someone with Raistlin's physique any chance to outperform Caramon is more than a little questionable.

I think I said it before but I will say it again. For every example you give of a character that can exist with my proposed system that isn't realistic I can give an example of a realistic character that cannot be created in D&D 5e.

I get that most everyone wants it so that non-unrealistic character cannot be created. I want it so that every realistic character can be created. I completely get that there is a tradeoff and that some unrealistic characters will become eligible by changing what I'm changing. How many times do I have to say I'm okay with that tradeoff.

FYI: If you are not clear on what concepts I'm looking to cover I've given examples in this thread. It also shouldn't be that difficult for you to make a few concepts like that. All it requires is wanting to be very good at 2 different skills governed by off-stats while also excelling at your classes combat methods. Heck, some classes like barbarians find it difficult to excel at a single off stat skill without a very large sacrifice.

 

[FrogReaver]

Here's my issue with your suggestion: it creates a strange narrative place where the 24 STR Barbarian not trained in athletics and who didn't put his points there wonders why he loses at arm-wrestling to the 4 STR (rolled, of course) Wizard who is trained in athletics and spent his points there. By decoupling, you've created a system that requires the expenditure of points on the physical skills to replicate the effects of stats. Failing to do so creates situations that don't make sense in the fiction (very strong people unable to effectively compete at strength related tasks with very weak people). This means that the physically gifted character archetypes have mandatory spending in your system.

I agree your system addresses some of the wonkiness with mental skills -- where some people are just good at skill group without generally high intelligence, but those kinds of outliers might be better served by a feat rather than a rewrite of the skill system.

Something like:

Feat: Savant

When you take this feat, choose a skill.
1) You gain expertise with this skill.
2). You may replace the associated stat bonus for this skill with a flat +3.

You may take this feat multiple times, but must choose a different skill each time.

SPECIAL: you may take this feat at character creation, even if you do not qualify to take a feat. In this case, you only gain the second benefit of this feat.

Feats are terrible solutions to system problems. Please don't feat-tax me just because the system failed to be able to deliver a realistic character. A feat tax (which just puts me further behind at whatever else I could have used that feat on) just to play a realistic character is just ill-conceived.

 

[FrogReaver]

Get rid of attributes altogether (they don't exist) and just use attack, save, AC and skills. For each one you will have to devise a reasonable progression and variance. For races transfer the bonuses to specific skills or set of skills, rinse and repeat for magic items, etc.

Maybe more elaboration on how this works would help?