D&D 5E Proposed Skill System for D&D Next

[LightPhoenix]

I too like the divorce of skills from attributes. I prefer the creative use of skills to rigidly defining them; I feel that the current system stifles that creativity. The classic example is, of course, intimidation; there are numerous ways to go about intimidating someone; why limit it to Charisma? I like what you've done, but rather than have it be rules, I think it should be guidelines.Skills ultimately work within the narrative versus the combat, and any rules involving them should ultimately service that narrative. Personally, I would like to see numerical scores removed from skills altogether, with characters having a broad ranking (for example, untrained, proficient, trained, focused, expert).

 

[Redbadge]

Not buying it. "Athletic" can apply to any Strength check, and "Educated" can apply to any Intelligence check. Too broad. I'd rather see a longer (perhaps unbounded) list of specific areas of expertise.

After some thought, I think that GX.Sigma makes a good point with regards to my proposed skill system. It is difficult for me to come up with a scenario where I wouldn't allow "Athletic" on most strength checks. Note that 4e saw this to some extent as well (i.e. you'll always use Endurance as opposed to a straight constitution check if you are trained in that skill). At that point, a skill system consisting of six skills ("Strong", "Dextrous", "Tough", "Intelligent", "Wise", "Charismatic) can be envisioned, which isn't something that anyone wants.

Taking that into account, I'd like to revise my system to include skills that are still broad, but that will obviously not be tied to 100% of an ability's checks. Someone mentioned a skill, for example, such as Mountaineering. Such a skill might apply to Strength checks to climb, Constitution checks to survive in the cold or at altitude, Wisdom checks to survive in the mountains, etc. Perhaps I wouldn't use this specific example, but something similar.

Alternatively, it may not just be that I necessarily need broad skills, but I still would like skills that cover the expected competencies without becoming too complex, as mentioned by @JamesonCourage .

As an example, the current Commoner background feels like it is missing something. A commoner gets drive, handle an animal, perform?, and spot. You can hide among the common folk, and you also select a profession. However, currently there is no indication that, if I were say a fisherman, that I'd be able to add my skill die to actually fish. And if I could, there is no indicated ability (though both Dexterity and Wisdom are obvious). As written, my commoner is better at performing than a soldier or sage, but for things such as gathering information in a village, predicting the weather, or haggling over commodity prices, I am just as good as the soldier or sage* (and if he has a better Wisdom and/or Charisma, I'll actually be worse). *Actually, the sage has persuade, which would probably apply to a Charisma check to haggle.

In short, if narrow skills are the answer, and assuming that backgrounds are the method to delineate skills and the competency they represent (which I'd prefer), then there should be an very long and detailed list, and characters should have numerous skills from that list. Also, my commoner fisherman should be better at haggling fish prices than the sage.

 

[Warbringer]

So, the problem I have with his is that essetially we end up with a system that is 6 skill checks and situational logic for a bonus; nothing more.

This can quickly devlove into continuous GM Fait/GM Force arguments, or skill spamming.

Of course, these are worst case scenarios and its not like gamers are an argumentitive bunch

 

[Schmoe]

So, the problem I have with his is that essetially we end up with a system that is 6 skill checks and situational logic for a bonus; nothing more.

Isn't that what it already is?

 

[Li Shenron]

Or should there be more skills, say 20, such that even the most diverse party misses a few.

This, but 20 ain't nearly enough. Ideally, I think at least twice as many that the group can cover, so more than 30, maybe 40.

Why so harsh? Because it isn't harsh at all... With some exceptions, any party already covers all skills, even a single PC can attempt anything that isn't label as "trained only" which is a minority of skills.

Do you need someone in the party with the Climb skill? Not really, because anyone can climb.

Do you need someone in the party with Knowledge(XYZ) skill even if this is trained-only? Not really, because knowledge/lore skills are usually just meant to provide occasional clues that make some situation simpler, but the DM can always make sure the situation isn't impossible without the knowledge (in which case, it is still impossible even if you have the skill because you aren't guaranteed to succeed on the roll).

In 5e skills are clearly just bonuses that make you better, not "stuff that needs to be covered by the group", because they already got it covered.

Notable exceptions could be rogue skills like open lock and disable traps, and very few more like tracking (assuming these will remain "trained only"). Even in that case, the game should be playable even by a party that is missing one of these... if an adventure is "impossible" without one PC having a specific skill, then it's a badly designed adventure, just like one that is "impossible" without a specific spell or item. And note that still such adventure will be "impossible" if the PC has the skill but fails at the check! Meaning that the only way to continue in the adventure is the DM allowing a retry until successful, which means she could have just handwaved success, so it is a badly designed adventure if it strictly requires one specific skill.

 

[Li Shenron]

Isn't that what it already is?

Heh, but then why having the skill system at all?

In fact guess what... the skill system is supposed to be optional. The game should work if the group decides to ignore skills altogether.

But that means, that the skill system must have a purpose, and when applied must create a difference. If the skill list is so short that it doesn't make the game very different from just using ability checks and granting each PC a bonus to one single ability (which is what they hinted at for Basic PCs without skills but still playing in a game where other PCs have them), then such short skill list is pointless.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

I personally miss the skill divorced from attributes, and want it to return but I feel like you've taken this backwards.

The old system was DM asks you to roll Strength to jump over a pit, you can try to justify if you can add athletics to it orjustify if you can add acrobatics to it.

You're system seems to be DM asks you to roll athletics and you justify which attribute to add to it.

Not that one way is better than the other but they are certainly opposites.

 

[jrowland]

This, but 20 ain't nearly enough. Ideally, I think at least twice as many that the group can cover, so more than 30, maybe 40.

I am with you, I was being rhetorical. But asking and answering those sorts of questions help define what you want out of a skill system.