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.

 

[Muh]

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

This is true, but this boils down to "There is nothing the GM can't do, therefore no rules matter" which is, uh... I just don't think that's useful.

 

[Marandahir]

Beyond 4e's skill powers, there were also 4e's Martial Practices.

In 4th Edition, certain spells from earlier editions only existed as rituals, a separate mechanic for the type of magical spells that are not really designed for combat encounters and are bigger in scope. Alchemy recipes were introduced in "Adventurer's Vault" (an items & equipments-focused rules expansion); these functioned much like Rituals but with various alchemical ingredients needed and were more readily accessible than rituals for non-magical characters.

Then "Martial Power 2" introduced Martial Practices, which are like Rituals and Alchemy, only powered by healing surges (i.e. HD), and utilizing your skills, weapons and armor, and other non-magical abilities and equipment for non-combat functionality.

I believe that part of why we don't have these sorts of subsystems in 5e (at least, haven't had in 5e -- Circle Magic is reminiscent of 4e Rituals), was the pushback against so much defined subsystems in 3e and 4e.

I know in the circle is played 4E in, there was some issue with people thinking if it doesn't have rules for it, it's not legal to play and if you make up your own rules to cover do a cool stunt then the Fighter who took the exploit power to do that cool stunt now feels like a chump.

But Martial Practices were one of the coolest innovations of 4E, and I highly urge taking a look at them. Skill Powers are a bit smaller in scope but more specific on those skills, the problem is that the power system doesn't work very well with non-combat encounters bc the language and feel of these powers lend themselves to combat, and that influences the designers into trying to make the skill powers helpful for combat rather than like utility powers for exploration and social situations.

Martial Practices, by leaning into the explicitely non-combat systems of rituals and alchemy, were allowed to really explore what Martialists could do outside of their focus area.

If you're going to use them out of the box, you may need to change up some of the costs as HD are much less plentiful in 5E than Healing Surges were in 4E. I'd still lean into using Hit Dice, but I'd also let them use Superiority Dice, Action Points, Focus Points, rages, sneak attack dice, divine smites, hunter's marks, etc. I would NOT include Psi Dice in that allowance as those are explicitely psionic and not martial/mundane/physical in nature.

 

[Scott Christian]

Now that there's Weapon Mastery, what about there being an option like Skill Mastery?

What I envision them being is something like cantrip or weapon mastery, expect that it's a special effect that happens when taking a certain type of action. For example:

Read Opponent
Skill: Insight
Action: Study
Until the beginning of your next turn you a creature you study gets disadvantage on attack rolls against you.

Disrupt Magic
Skill: Arcana
Action: Help
Your help can grant the subject advantage on their next saving throw against a magical effect.

Something that uses a particular skill and a type of action to make an effect or benefit. Maybe some of them require rolls using the skill and some of them don't.

There would be at least one for every skill, and some skills might have more than one mastery associated.

And the idea of how one could get a Skill Mastery is that they may take one in place of a weapon mastery or cantrip.

Could they even be viable as full actions? Unlike weapon mastery it's not with a single attack but a full action, and do they need to be comparable to actual cantrips?

Any more thoughts on this concept?

I like it. I really do. But it will slow combat, even if it is just a little. And that is something people don't want.