Kobold Avenger
Legend
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.
D&D 5E (2024) Skill Mastery as an idea
- Thread starter Kobold Avenger
- Start date
Muh
Hero
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.
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
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
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
Hero
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.
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
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.
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.
Peter BOSCO'S
Adventurer
What you would need to do is give every skill a Mastery Property, as weapons have Mastery Properties. Than every character who had Mastery of the skill could, when they successfully used that skill, add the Mastery Property.
Example - Mastery Property for Intimidation = Fear. "When you successfully use Intimidation on a target they "Fear" you until the end of the next round." (A minutes worth of "Fear" is too good, that should take a spell slot).
Example - Mastery Property for Intimidation = Fear. "When you successfully use Intimidation on a target they "Fear" you until the end of the next round." (A minutes worth of "Fear" is too good, that should take a spell slot).
Last edited:
If one has a good DM who understands the situation you talk about... you as a player DO know what you can and can't do even with "non-rule" skills (as you put it) because the DM will be consistent with what they allow and plus care more about making a fun and interesting game than trying to hardline the rules.
Now perhaps you've never played with a DM like that? I don't know. But I can say from experience that I have, and I'd much rather just play in a game where I can simply think of ideas off the top of my head of what I'd like to see my character and the group's characters try to do, and then the DM just making a ruling in the moment of "Okay, you can try that, make a X check"... rather than have my head buried in my character sheet constantly scanning the same list of abilities over and over again trying to find something to accomplish from the select list. But that's me. I will always select "improv" over "board game" when it comes to roleplaying games. But YMMV.
Muh
Hero
If medicine has no rules, what can you actually do with it?
I repeat that the problem isn't that there are few rules, rather that there is an imbalance between how the classes interact with the rules. Some classes have many rules and some classes have fewer. Casters are guaranteed a basic degree of competence, and martials are not.
This is why Lancer is much more balanced even though it has less rules per class. Because everyone relies on the same really basic system of interaction.
In short: If everyone has to negotiate about everything, the system is much more likely to be fair than if some classes need less negotiation than others.
AnotherGuy
Hero
Similar Threads
D&D 5E (2024)
Martials: damage scaling like cantrips?
D&D 5E (2024)
Should full casters and Monks have one weapon mastery?
