D&D 5E Skill idea 3,142

[Sadrik]

Ok so this skill idea is trying to accommodate the opt in of a skill system and the opt out. I think there is also the notion of accommodating a 15-20 skills list and a 40-50 skills list. So whatever gets made it has to fit into those along with simply just the ability scores. I'll just talk about ability scores and skills though the number of skills can vary depending on the granularity the DM likes.

So here it is:
1. The DCs need to stay the same because you don't want to have two sets of DCs based on which system you are using.
2. The way you roll has to fundamentally be the same whether you are rolling with ability or with skill.
3. So, that makes me think of the advantage mechanic. To use the advantage mechanic you would have to pull it from its current use and put in something else (just bonuses).
4. When using no skills you just roll a stat check and you would get advantage when the DM thought the roll meshed well with the character's background or knowledge and the opposite when their background or knowledge clearly does not work they would get disadvantage.
5. When using skills this becomes more codified. You have disadvantage in all skills and then spend points to increase to "just roll" and the more points to roll advantage.

DCs would probably need to change from what they are currently in the play test packet, likely tuned down a little. Other than that it is an excellent way to opt into complexity and still keep the fundamental math the same.

Opinions?

 

[sheadunne]

Why not say that you can you use your ability score or your skill, whichever is higher, and limit skill progression to 5 ranks.

Strength or Climb
Dexterity or Stealth
Intelligence or Knowledge

If you want a short list of skills, give less skill points. If you want more skills, give more skill points. Give out skill points every 3 levels and limit them to 1 rank per a skill.

Personally I think skills have a long way to go before they're even useful in D&D, at least in all the editions I've played. Who needs a skill when you can gonzo your way past the challenge (especially at high levels). Skills need a complete rework to be relevant or they need to be limited to fluff.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Personally I think skills have a long way to go before they're even useful in D&D, at least in all the editions I've played. Who needs a skill when you can gonzo your way past the challenge (especially at high levels). Skills need a complete rework to be relevant or they need to be limited to fluff.

Could you expand on this? I'm not sure you mean by skills not being useful.

 

[sheadunne]

Could you expand on this? I'm not sure you mean by skills not being useful.

For skills to be useful, they must provide a means of overcoming a challenge that cannot be bypassed by another, more efficient means, namely magic, although brute force and HP will usually do the trick. Does hide = invisibility, does climb = fly, does finding traps = healing, does perception = true sight, etc? And does it hold up over 20 levels? Sure they're fine at low levels, but then what's the point once you've gotten the ability to do it more efficiently? Where's the value added? Each edition has attempted to address this question and none of them have succeeded.

Anyway, probably shouldn't have brought it up, but it just bugs me every time I see a skills discussion that avoids the real issue. It doesn't matter if you have a +1 or a +20, skills just can't keep up in a world where magic and game mechanics like HP do it better and easier.

 

[MortalPlague]

3. So, that makes me think of the advantage mechanic. To use the advantage mechanic you would have to pull it from its current use and put in something else (just bonuses).

I think advantage / disadvantage is one of the best universal mechanics in 5th Edition. Taking it away and replacing it with bonuses would really undermine a lot of the charm of the edition.

...skills just can't keep up in a world where magic and game mechanics like HP do it better and easier.

Should they?

Should climb be better than fly? Or perception better than true sight?

Spells are limited by the fact that they can only be used a certain amount every day, while skills can be used all day long. And sure, perception and insight can pierce illusions much like true sight; the spell simply does it, while the skills require a roll. But that's the cost of it being useable all day long.

 

[sheadunne]

I think advantage / disadvantage is one of the best universal mechanics in 5th Edition. Taking it away and replacing it with bonuses would really undermine a lot of the charm of the edition.

Not everyone is a fan of ad/dis. But I agree, if it's in, it shouldn't be ignored.

Should they?

Should climb be better than fly? Or perception better than true sight?

Spells are limited by the fact that they can only be used a certain amount every day, while skills can be used all day long. And sure, perception and insight can pierce illusions much like true sight; the spell simply does it, while the skills require a roll. But that's the cost of it being useable all day long.

Yes they should or why have them. Spells last long enough because time is abstract in D&D. 1 hour has no real meaning. It can't be quantified in game terms. An hour of game time could be 20 encounters or 1. As long as spells are measured in time and time isn't measured at all, spells will continue to be unlimited in usability and skills will be the poor cousin that's in the game for those who like low/no magic settings (which I do, but D&D hasn't done well in decades).

But enough derailing the OP, with my grumbling. Continuing on and I'll not interrupt again.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Yes they should or why have them. Spells last long enough because time is abstract in D&D. 1 hour has no real meaning. It can't be quantified in game terms.

1 hour = 60 minutes = 6 turns = 60, 360, or 600 rounds

 

[Meatboy]

Snip... 4. When using no skills you just roll a stat check and you would get advantage when the DM thought the roll meshed well with the character's background or knowledge and the opposite when their background or knowledge clearly does not work they would get disadvantage.... snip

...DCs would probably need to change from what they are currently in the play test packet, likely tuned down a little. Other than that it is an excellent way to opt into complexity and still keep the fundamental math the same.

Opinions?

Instead of whenever the DM thinks its appropriate what about having Primary stats again? Where fighters get advantage using skills that are primary like say Str and Con or Rogues with dex and int. Etc. with backgrounds maybe adding more or an additional advantage in related skills?

This is a pretty slick idea though.

 

[Sadrik]

Instead of whenever the DM thinks its appropriate what about having Primary stats again? Where fighters get advantage using skills that are primary like say Str and Con or Rogues with dex and int. Etc. with backgrounds maybe adding more or an additional advantage in related skills?

This is a pretty slick idea though.

Oh yeah I really like that, for the no skills option you could perhaps get one prime stat ability from class and for your background you could pick from two possible ones (so in case your class has the same one you are not screwed). It would certainly make things very cut and dry and less nebulous as to DM approval. I was originally envisioning the approval disapproval being rare occurrences. So mostly raw stat checks for everything unless the DM said oh you couldnt possibly know about that, roll with disadvantage. Also background could give you a disadvantage stat too.

Also as an aside, count me as one of the ones where the advantage disadvantage mechanic is meh, at least the way it is implemented. It seems unevenly applied to some things and not to others.

What got me thinking about this idea was the very uneven application of disadvantage when not proficient in your weapon. Then I was thinking proficiency=skills/abilities how wound that look... Not proficient in your skill disadvantage, have skill, then skill mastery is advantage. Since the dice still fall within the 1 to 20 scale and you apply the same ability bonus the skill or the ability can be applied to the same DC.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Personally I think skills have a long way to go before they're even useful in D&D, at least in all the editions I've played. Who needs a skill when you can gonzo your way past the challenge (especially at high levels). Skills need a complete rework to be relevant or they need to be limited to fluff.

Hey! Skills as mundane Spells - I like it!

A rogue at 2nd level can open locks as if casting a Knock.

A 9th level fighter can summon 12 2nd level warriors as if casting Summon Monster IV.

-That'd be cool.

Discuss here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?337195-Skills-as-mundane-Spells&p=6138288#post6138288