D&D 5E Skill idea 3,142

[Jeff Carlsen]

If we're just tossing around ideas, here's one:

You have a climb bonus. When climbing, you roll both a strength check and a climb check and take the higher result. Advantage only applies to the ability check.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

We could also make the skill system part of the feat system.

Instead of a +1 to an ability score, you take the Skill Training feat. The feat would present the skill list from which you choose six skills. You get a +1 bonus to those skills. You can take the feat again, but must choose new skills. The Skill Expertise and Skill Mastery feats would let you raise existing skills to +2 and +3 respectively.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Under the either/or system, it would be Str 18 (+4) or Climb 5 ranks (+5). Don't add them together. It bugs a lot of people to not add your stat to your skill roll, but it does balance the two.

Since you cap at 5 ranks in a skill, a rogue with a 20 starting dex can never improve Stealth, Acrobatics, or any other Dex based skill? Worse, a rogue with an 18 dex can improve a dex based skill, but it cost him 5 skill points for a +1 bonus. I understand why it bugs people, it bugs me .

Hell, even if you just sum Stat + Skill Rank with a +5 cap, you run into system mastery problems. If a character ever increases a stat (say from 16 to 18), if they didn't plan for it from level 1, they could easily lose a skill point. Say Dex 16 and Stealth of 2 to get a +5 bonus on Stealth checks. Dex goes to 18. Now you've wasted a skill point.

So there are some design flaws with either/or. It has system mastery issues and leaves very little room for PC growth in a skill.

This system could work with a few changes.

• Sum Stat Modifier and Skill Rank
• Make the Cap +10
• +5 is the maximum modifier from a Stat
• 5 is the maximum rank in a Skill

You've accomplished your goal in bounding skill checks and you don't end up with system mastery issues (ie, players being punished for not planning for increases to Stats). PCs can improve, but a 20 is still going to be a hard DC to hit (a +10 is going to hit it 55% of the time barring other modifiers) and 30 is going to be all but impossible barring special circumstances (+10 has a 5% chance barring additional modifiers).

Now we just need to solve that pesky Multi-class problem

 

[sheadunne]

Since you cap at 5 ranks in a skill, a rogue with a 20 starting dex can never improve Stealth, Acrobatics, or any other Dex based skill? Worse, a rogue with an 18 dex can improve a dex based skill, but it cost him 5 skill points for a +1 bonus. I understand why it bugs people, it bugs me .

Hell, even if you just sum Stat + Skill Rank with a +5 cap, you run into system mastery problems. If a character ever increases a stat (say from 16 to 18), if they didn't plan for it from level 1, they could easily lose a skill point. Say Dex 16 and Stealth of 2 to get a +5 bonus on Stealth checks. Dex goes to 18. Now you've wasted a skill point.

So there are some design flaws with either/or. It has system mastery issues and leaves very little room for PC growth in a skill.

This system could work with a few changes.

• Sum Stat Modifier and Skill Rank
• Make the Cap +10
• +5 is the maximum modifier from a Stat
• 5 is the maximum rank in a Skill

You've accomplished your goal in bounding skill checks and you don't end up with system mastery issues (ie, players being punished for not planning for increases to Stats). PCs can improve, but a 20 is still going to be a hard DC to hit (a +10 is going to hit it 55% of the time barring other modifiers) and 30 is going to be all but impossible barring special circumstances (+10 has a 5% chance barring additional modifiers).

Now we just need to solve that pesky Multi-class problem

The goal isn't to bound skill checks. It is to allow two different styles of play (ability score only and skills) to use the same DC system for success. A single DC of 10 needs to be able to accommodate using ability score only (no skills) and using a skill system.

 

[Sadrik]

The goal isn't to bound skill checks. It is to allow two different styles of play (ability score only and skills) to use the same DC system for success. A single DC of 10 needs to be able to accommodate using ability score only (no skills) and using a skill system.

This is why the either/or concept would work or the disadvantage/advantage method would work.

Another possible way to do it is to have it done all on the back end by the DM. So, when not using skills you that is your natural DC, so a 10 is a 10 when not using a skill system, and everyone has every skill. Then with skills the DM lowers the DC by 3 if you have the skill or raises it by 2 if you don't. So a 10 becomes a 12 normally and if you have the skill it is a 7. I am also in favor of having skills be a question to the DM, can I use perception skill and then the DM says yes and modifies the DC.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Instead of either/or, you could take the Savage Worlds approach, where Ability scores determine how much skill ranks cost. It costs one skill point to increase a stat one point until your skill matches your ability score. Then it costs two skill points. The maximum is still five.

With this method, you only roll skill checks. You don't add the ability modifier. Ability checks are only made for things where an applicable skill doesn't apply.

 

[Sadrik]

Savage worlds is my go to system, however when I proposed either/or in another thread poll the reaction was quite strong, they wanted stat+skill.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Savage worlds is my go to system, however when I proposed either/or in another thread poll the reaction was quite strong, they wanted stat+skill.

Sure, but that doesn't mean we can't explore and present other options.

Personally, I prefer stat+skill.

I would like the basic game to have something like an attack bonus, exploration bonus, and interaction bonus, with the option to break them up into more detailed skills.

 

[cmbarona]

It's pretty tricky accommodating both systems. I agree it's important to keep the same DCs, though. Even altering them on the DM's side could cause complications that I believe could be resolved with a proper system.

I think the best way to handle the difference is to start from the point of view of the Abilities-only (I'm just going to abbreviate that A-O for now) side, as we've mostly been doing. I think it's easy to create a Skills system you don't have to resolve with an A-O system (as some past editions have done). But that can be difficult to then drop, because it can be developed independent of most considerations for the A-O system.

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?

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?

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

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.