D&D 5E (2024) Skill Mastery as an idea

[Kobold Avenger]

If it was me... I would not have any Skill Mastery affect combat-related rolls at all.

I think they should have effect in combat as I have similar thoughts about the framework of the other pillars where it's not as codified and a lot of things are just up to the DM to decide.

 

[Muh]

I find it is ultimately better to just find a good DM than it is to play a game that requires so many rules to be included in it so that you are always able to be allowed to play no matter what it is you wish to accomplish. A game run by a quality DM trumps any game trying to "protect" players with just rule after rule after rule.

I knew this counter argument would come into play, but the thing is that doesn't matter because if you assume that the game master is more generous with regards to what the rules explicitly allow, for example what a wizard can do with his pathetic athletics skill, then what is to say that the same GM is not just as generous as what he allows the wizard thing to do with prestidigitation or dimension door.

The core of the problem is that the game is asymmetrically designed in such a way that casters have rules and non-casters have no rules. Sure you can have a more generous GM but the thing now is you need the GM to be explicitly biased in his generosity otherwise his generosity will favour the classes with rules more than they favour those without.

If your DM doesn’t run the game in a way you like, more rules won’t help you.

They will actually, because the GM explicitly cannot rule against your spells unless they employ specific counter measures.

You always know, if you have misty step, that you can teleport away. You don't know WHAT you can do with medicine.

This is also why, for example, Echo Knight is actually good, because the teleportation ability is pretty much certain and requires little negotiation.

 

[James Gasik]

3.5e had "tricks" or something similar that was introduced in some book like Complete Scroundrel. So that's where my thinking sort of came in.

I immediately thought of this, and I really liked their implementation.

4e Skill Powers a bit less so, since, as far as I can recall, either just being a power that had a skill as a requirement (like making enemies who don't target me suffer -5 to hit because I'm proficient with Intimidate, the actual skill not mattering) or just let me substitute a skill check for some other check (like being able to use Arcana in place of another skill 1/encounter).

 

[Corinnguard]

This sounds somewhat like "Skill Powers" from 4th Edition. Here's a quick summary via ChatGPT.

I am reminded of Level Up's Skill Expertise.

Skill Specialties
In addition to having proficiency in a skill, a character may be an expert at a narrow area of specialization within that skill. For instance, a character proficient in the Deception skill may be particularly adept in communicating through written code.
A character gains two skill specialties at 1st level (plus bonus knowledge; see page 405) and gains an additional specialty whenever their proficiency bonus increases (at levels 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th level). A character may choose any specialty in a skill in which they are proficient. A character may not gain the same skill specialty twice.
When a character makes an ability check to which their skill specialty applies, they gain an expertise die (d4) for that ability check. The Narrator determines whether the skill specialty applies.

 

[aco175]

I like the idea. It needs something better than a 1/rest reroll though. I like some of the minor stuff like instant jumping or hiding.

 

[Stormonu]

A slight variation I'm doing for my custom ruleset is that when you get skill specializations, you choose two subskills and gain a bonus on those subskills. I could see it also being extended that you could do stunts related to those named subskills, especially them being little tricks you can do, without having to making a skill roll to pull them off.

So, for example, you might have Athletics. Subskills could be Jump, Climb, Swim, etc. A stunt might be to do a kip-up with Jump so you only use 5 ft. when standing back up. But at the same time, not restrict it to only a narrow set of subskills - just give some examples. Same with the stunts - negotiate with the player what sort of stunts you can pull off (and if you need to, write down the mechanics if it's needed for later).

One thing I learned from the design of the Chronicles of Ramlar & 3E long ago (and Daggerheart recently) is there is a diminishing value of return if you too narrowly define skills, backgrounds or the like. Keep them broad, don't be stingy with the mechanics ("You must have the Kip-up subskill to do that" - nah, specialization with Jumping is more than enough) and be willing to negotiate with the players based on their character concept and what's happening in the story for it makes sense. Because sometimes, DMs try to get too far into the weeds with "mother-may-I" systems from what was initially meant to add a little pep to their game.