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

[Kobold Avenger]

Anyways thinking back on a few more examples.

Here's one based on the 3e skill use.

Tumble
Skill: Acrobatics
Use: When you move as part of an action you can give up 5 feet of movement to avoid taking opportunity attacks from a single opponent.

I think "Use" might be a better example going forward than "Action" even though I strongly thought of how some mastery abilties should be tied to certain action types.

Some skills would be harder to think of what sort of mastery they might have.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I use them constantly. Really makes you feel like you know something specific. I allow folks to get a skill specialty in a non-proficient skill too (so they get the +1d4 but not the proficiency bonus), to represent a special facility. Like have a specialty in smell or hearing but no particular proficiency in Perception.

 

[Emerikol]

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

Really? There is nothing a DM cannot rule against or overrule.

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

Yes a spelled out rule means it is more likely to work consistently. It also mean other uses are likely rejected. An open ended ability is more flexible but perhaps depending on the DM less reliable. Realize though that every ruling a DM gives is precedent for the future.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If one has a good GM, they'll attempt to fix the asymmetrical issue which exists with the game in the first place.

Yes, but they probably shouldn't have to.

I don't believe in rules as protection against bad GMs, but nevertheless some guidelines for what skills can actually do would be beneficial. It simply makes being consistent easier, and makes sure everyone is on the same page about what is possible.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Yes, but they probably shouldn't have to.

Nature of D&D...
Tinkering is not 5e specific.
People like to tailor the rules for the type of game they wish to play.

I don't believe in rules as protection against bad GMs, but nevertheless some guidelines for what skills can actually do would be beneficial. It simply makes being consistent easier, and makes sure everyone is on the same page about what is possible.

Sure, a standard would work for skills, but magic is the real problem IMO.

 

[Quickleaf]

It’s a good idea that has been executed in different ways in past D&D editions and other RPGs. The challenge is that the non-combat design space in conventional/mainstream 5e is realllllly thing. You ca do cool moves in that narrow design space, but it’s hard to do a lot of cool moves with a cohesive system intended to integrate seamlessly with existing systems.

An example of threading that needle might be:

Acrobatics: Diving & Tumbling specialty

• If you deliberately fall into soft material reduce falling damage dice to d4’s.
• If you dive into water, reduce effective falling distance by Acrobatics check X 5 feet.