D&D 5E Separating Knowledge from Skill (+)

[DND_Reborn]

Given the thread about dropping Intelligence, I am exploring the idea of separating knowledge (what your character knows) from skill (what they can do, sort of...).

Here is the current breakdown / revamp:

• Strength
  • Climbing
  • Jumping
  • Swimming
• Constitution
  • ?
  • ?
  • Running
• Dexterity
  • Acrobatics
  • Sleight of Hand
  • Stealth
• Intelligence
  • Insight
  • Investigation
  • Perception
• Wisdom
  • Animal Handling
  • Medicine
  • Survival
• Charisma
  • Influence (Deception/ Persuasion)
  • Intimidation
  • Performance

I am breaking Athletics down into components (Climb, Jump, Swim) and I know I could add things like Lift and Sprint even, but since the first three are types of movement in 5E, I focused on those.

I am combining Deception and Persuasion into one skill: Influence, because whether you lie or persuade, your goal is to convince someone of something. I see this as different enough from Intimidation, although at one point I considered including it.

Finally, Insight and Perception were moved to Intelligence. I know many people might be "What are you DOING!?!" with that move, but it balances things out and makes Intelligence a bit more important. IMO Rogues should have better INT, but because Perception fell under WIS, too many were choosing it over INT and their Investigation suffered.

I might add another "skill" to Wisdom, Awareness or something, for the rangery-types who find moving it to INT to devastating.

There are other changes I am considering, but that's enough of that for now.

The areas of Knowledge I have (so far) include:

• Arcana
• Etiquette
• Geography
• Heraldry
• History
• Medicine
• Multiverse
• Nature
• Religion
• Tactics
• Underdark

Currently, your background gives you 1-3 knowledge areas, and you gain another +1 (if you want) for each point of Intelligent modifier your PC has. Other uses for INT modifier bonuses include proficiency in a language, skill, tool, or weapon.

Your class selection will give you a choice of probably 2 knowledges for your character, but I am working on that so who knows? Race might add another?

Anyway, in addition to sharing just to share, I would like to know if anyone can help with thinking up:

1. Two more skills for Constitution.
2. More areas of knowledge to throw into the pot.

Thanks for any assistance and please, let's try to keep this constructive.

 

[el-remmen]

What about a Con skill based on alertness? Not sure how it would work and I am just spitballing here, but while on guard being able to stay focused and alert in order to perceive dangers. Not sure. Con skills are hard.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Con skills are hard.

Yeah, they are. They are more akin to a "talent" like holding your breath, you are good at it or you aren't, although you can develop it if you need to...

We'll see what others might have to contribute, but thanks for getting the ball rolling!

 

[Krachek]

A lot of skills should rely on more than one ability.
Deception is a matter of charisma, intelligence, and even wisdom, and physical stance.
The list of single ability skill bugs can be long.
one solution can be to rely only on proficiency bonus.
skill bonus = PB for untrained, or simply a flat 0 bonus for untrained skill. That will make a bigger difference between trained and untrained.
PB + PB for trained.
PB + PB + PB for expertise.

Sadly it won’t solve your dump stat problem, it will even make it worst.

 

[DND_Reborn]

A lot of skills should rely on more than one ability.

Yeah, I understand that, and although I am "listing these under an ability" I am a firm believer in the mix-and-match use of ability and skills, like the classic Strength (Intimidation) instead of Charisma (Intimidation). By playing ability off of skill and vice versa, you can achieve some of the variability of having skills relying on more than one ability IME.

The pitfall to that, of course, is players trying to come up with nonsensical ways of using a particular ability which is high with a skill that is appropriate.

one solution can be to rely only on proficiency bonus.
skill bonus = PB for untrained, or simply a flat 0 bonus for untrained skill. That will make a bigger difference between trained and untrained.
PB + PB for trained.
PB + PB + PB for expertise.

If I wanted to remove ability scores from skills completely, something like that could work. I think it has been suggested (perhaps by you?) in other threads when people argue for killing the sacred cow that is abilities.

 

[Irlo]

I have a few thoughts and half-formed questions, but I haven't taken the time to decide if these are good ideas. You be the judge.

1) You don't need to come up with an exhaustive list of areas of knowledge. Let the players identify their own and let them take broad fields (religion, for example) or hyper-focused areas (secret rites of the heretical Blue Sun sect of Pelor). Rolling for knowledge skills often strikes me as weird, so I understand your desire to separate knowledge from skill. Doing so, the DM will still need to make determinations of what the PCs actually know, since they can't know everything. Do you have ideas of the practical effects of having a knowledge area in your background? And the effect of NOT having it? How much religion do I know when I don't have that area noted on my character sheet?

2) Some issues might be resolved by a more explicit permission to use alternate ability scores to support skills. Maybe the night watch can use CON to modify perception checks during those long, cold nights on the walls of the keep. The sharp-minded rogue might use INT to modify perception when it involves attention to detail, allowing them to still be competent in investigation, while the ranger can use WIS for a more general something's-not-right sense out in the forest. One might use CON for persuasion, if it means standing there and holding one's breath until they get their way.

3) I balk at combining deception and persuasion. I like the idea of the idealistic hero very capable of inspiring others to acts of bravery and self-sacrifice but unable to tell a convicing lie to save his life. Those fine distinctions might be better made using traits, ideals, and flaws, though. The player might volunteer to take disadvantage on deception (or just chose to fail) in exchange for inspiration, in games that use inspiration that way. Does anyone do that?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Hey there, what an interesting take. Here's what my list would look like:

Str:

• Jumping
• Intimidate
• Feat of Strength (force stuff open, bend bars, lift gates etc)

Con:

• Swimming
• Journey (mix survival, forced march ST, harsh conditions saves over long distance)
• Running

Dex:

• Deft Hands
• Acrobatics
• Stealth

Int:

• Search (investigation)
• Riddle (bluff, fast talk, confusing banter, decipher, deduction, wits)
• Evaluation (knowing the value or provenance of objects, bargaining)

Wis:

• Insight
• Navigation
• Sense (perception)

Cha:

• Persuasion
• Animal Empathy
• Streetwise (include carousing and rumor gathering)

Knowledges:
All artisan tools
All instruments
All ''kits''
All Gambling set
Healing (replace medicine and part of herbalism kit)
Nature (covers part of the herbalism kit)
Culture X (includes language and general history)
Arcana
Faith
Monster Type X
Geography X
Heraldry (includes etiquette and small scale history)

 

[DND_Reborn]

I have a few thoughts and half-formed questions, but I haven't taken the time to decide if these are good ideas. You be the judge.

Thanks for your input!

1) You don't need to come up with an exhaustive list of areas of knowledge. Let the players identify their own and let them take broad fields (religion, for example) or hyper-focused areas (secret rites of the heretical Blue Sun sect of Pelor). Rolling for knowledge skills often strikes me as weird, so I understand your desire to separate knowledge from skill. Doing so, the DM will still need to make determinations of what the PCs actually know, since they can't know everything. Do you have ideas of the practical effects of having a knowledge area in your background? And the effect of NOT having it? How much religion do I know when I don't have that area noted on my character sheet?

I wasn't planning on coming up with a massive list, just a dozen or so examples. I really would like players to come up with ideas for knowledge for their PC and then if it is too narrow, expand it out to a full-fleshed knowledge.

When it comes to rolling, like with other ability checks I only call for it if I think it is warranted. If the knowledge is basic (albeit specific to that knowledge), then DCs are so low it isn't worth doing. It would be more about recalling information or obscure details for me anyway.

My friend and I were discussing the knowledge concept last night and I think the biggest thing is to have it provide synergies with other things like skills, tools, and possibly combat (such as tactics knowledge).

FWIW, each background offers you so many knowledges to learn, it doesn't currently tell you which ones you get to choose from but that will probably be in the works. I am hesitant to do it, though, but it limits player creativity in developing their character's background and thus, at least in part, backstory.

For example, I could see the Soldier background (who gets only 1 knowledge) offering options of:

• Geography
• Heraldry
• History
• Medicine
• Nature
• Tactics

I could see a soldier background providing the opportunity to learn any of those knowledge areas quite easily, but things like Arcana, Underdark, etc. would be harder. BUT by still allowing it to be completely open, it would make sense if a soldier background PC did learn about Arcana and for their class choose Wizard or the EK subclass.

So, it makes sense to group possible knowledge areas by background, but it could be too limiting. I am not sure which way I want to go.

2) Some issues might be resolved by a more explicit permission to use alternate ability scores to support skills. Maybe the night watch can use CON to modify perception checks during those long, cold nights on the walls of the keep. The sharp-minded rogue might use INT to modify perception when it involves attention to detail, allowing them to still be competent in investigation, while the ranger can use WIS for a more general something's-not-right sense out in the forest. One might use CON for persuasion, if it means standing there and holding one's breath until they get their way.

Sure, but even some of those examples are straining credibility, and I want to avoid "crazy" ability-skill combos just because someone wants to use their CHA for everything, etc. I am all for unlinking ability-skill for some instances, but the majority of the time the skill will probably stay with the ability.

3) I balk at combining deception and persuasion. I like the idea of the idealistic hero very capable of inspiring others to acts of bravery and self-sacrifice but unable to tell a convicing lie to save his life. Those fine distinctions might be better made using traits, ideals, and flaws, though. The player might volunteer to take disadvantage on deception (or just chose to fail) in exchange for inspiration, in games that use inspiration that way. Does anyone do that?

IME most games have dropped inspiration, and many don't even bother with personality traits anymore.

I understand your hesitation because the method of delivery is different, but the result (influencing someone) is the same. I just don't see enough distinction to warrant them being separate skills. I'm not opposed to keeping them "as is", but for now I like having them together. It might change, we'll see.

Thanks for your you feedback!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hey there, what an interesting take. Here's what my list would look like:

Nice take. I might run some of these by my group next weekend when we work on hashing more of this out. Right now I am just developing the preliminary work so we have a solid base from which to start.

 

[Rogerd1]

I am glad someone put swimming as a Con skill. Being able to swim is not hard, swimming is tough over any diatance.