D&D 5E Skill idea 3,142

[Sadrik]

It also strikes me that there are certain fundamental questions to answer:

1. Why do we want a Skills system in the first place? (note: not arguing we shouldn't have it, just want to clearly define its purpose)
2. If we assume DCs are the same between systems, should those who play with the Skills system have the same chance of success as the A-O system?
3. In general, WotC has been getting great feedback about the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic. Do we know how people have liked the Skill Die? Or have they preferred static bonuses?
4. How do people feel about current Advantage stacking rules? For example, under the initial A-O proposal of getting Advantage on certain Ability checks (which I rather like), there is no difference between having advantage in a regular situation and having Advantage in an advantageous situation. Is this desirable?

1. I will define it. A skill system is a limiter of actions. It limits your character to only doing what is on the character's sheet, in the case of trained only, and gives you a significant boost in things that are on your character sheet. The more granular the skill system the more likely you are going to be in a situation where you do not have the appropriate skill for the task, effectively limiting the possible tasks. I think many people like this, especially hard nosed DMs. Some DMs prefer the opposite extreme and don't want to limit the PCs actions and tie it more to player ingenuity, this would be those DMs that would like the 6 abilities doubled as skills.
2. Yes, but it depends. If balancing the two, you need to have some way to balance between the two. So I can see some gradation on how you roll or DC, something has to give to balance it.
3. I can only speak for myself on the skill die mechanic. I dont like it. I would rather have a flat bonus. Rather than adding two dice and adding a bonus or penalty on top, I would rather add 1 die to 1 modifier.
4. I think the advantage/Disadvantage system is applied unevenly. I also have problems with how it is applied in some cases. If the very nice mechanic were reapplied to just ability/skill checks it would be very evenly balanced. Then the other areas would be balanced too all bonuses and penalties, not sometimes bonuses and penalties and sometimes advantage and disadvantage.

All that being said, my own proposal is:

1. In the A-O system, classes have primary stats (as proposed by @Meatboy ). Rather than gaining Advantage on those checks (as proposed by @Sadrik ), they can use a skill die for any associated checks.
2. In the Skills system, classes do NOT have primary stats. They gain training on various skills through other means, such as backgrounds etc., and can use a skill die for those checks.

How's that sound?

So skill die to certain stats, or skill die to certain skills. I think this works, but would have to look at the math between the skilled and non-skilled rolls.

I will be honest I do not like pooling dice in D&D for anything other than damage spells. It feels like another system. The bell curve of rolling the two dice makes the math denser for the average person to figure out odds at the table. D&D has always been a bonus. Outside of that historical perspective it is just my taste.

 

[Sadrik]

For me, the single most important aspect of a good skill system is that is provides a unified mechanical representation of training. That's why it's so important to me that attacks, proficiencies, and skills all use the same framework.

It would be great if, in addition to skills like climb and intimidate, we could also create combat skills, all without altering the math of the game.

Lastly, I want players who don't want that level of complication to be able to play at the same table as those who do.

Using the proficiency method with the advantage/disadvantage system you can use disadvantage for those who don't have proficiency and then normal roll for those proficient and advantage for some warrior types to specialize in a weapon.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Using the proficiency method with the advantage/disadvantage system you can use disadvantage for those who don't have proficiency and then normal roll for those proficient and advantage for some warrior types to specialize in a weapon.

I'm perfectly alright with using the same proficiency as weapons, where not having it grants you disadvantage. I'm not so cool with specialization granting advantage though. Advantage should always require effort or situational advantage.

But what about the bonus? If there is an attack bonus with a max of +5, there needs to be an equivalent for skills. Either both should get it, or neither.

 

[sheadunne]

Would it be balanced with the following.

Option one: ability score only rolls with an ad/dis mechanic

Benefit: Simple and produces the equivalent of +5 bonus to ability score checks.

Example: Climbing a Wall
Strength 18: +4 with advantage.

Option two: ability score plus general skill list

Benefit: Allows some skill progression and choice but keeps the list of skills small (similar to 4e skill list).

Example: Climbing a Wall
Strength 18: +4 with up to +5 skill ranks in athletics

Option three: general skill list plus specific skills.

Benefit: Granular skill system. Allows you to get good at things where you may have a poor ability score, since ability scores aren't counted. Similar to the original cortex skill system (only without adding ability scores).

Example: Climbing a Wall
Up to +5 skill ranks in athletics (general) and up to +5 skill ranks in climb (specific)

Balanced? Granted this does not include the mechanic to actually acquire skill points, which would be required to make options 2 and 3 work.

 

[fjw70]

Lately I have been leaning towards combining stat and skills into a single skill list and making the modifiers that new score (e.g. You would have a +4 strength instead of 18). Any skill/stat can max out at +5. The list would include combat skills for attack on bonuses.

I understand that such a system is too radical for 5e but I may houserule it.

 

[CAFRedblade]

What if skill ranks supplanted ability modifiers in checks completely, and cap them at +5.

Untrained perception would be raw ability score. For one character that's +2.
Training via skill ranks into Perception means they could eventually get up to a +5.
But they aren't cumulative, instead the training supplants the raw ability.
Haven't thought out anything on number of skill points, how often one would get them or how to level cap them yet.
Just some musings.

 

[sheadunne]

The issue is that not everyone wants skills at all.

 

[nomotog]

I am thinking bring back skill points only they wouldn't be automatic. Not every class would get them. The rouge would get a few, but the fighter wouldn't unless you picked up a subclass that gave some to you.