D&D 5E Skills in 5E. Do we want them?

[Stormonu]

I don't think I'd enjoy playing without some sort of skill system, and my preferred would be pretty much like how Pathfinder handles it.

It would be nice to see options though, in the core book

1) Your character knows what you know [OD&D/1E/BECMI]
2) Roll vs. Ability Score [1E/BECMI]
3) Secondary Skills/Fixed skills [1E]
4) Proficiency system (sort of a combo of 2 & 3) [2E's method]
5) Skills with skill points

Of course, to put all these options in the book and not have it take up too much space so that those who don't use an option don't feel cheated, you'd probably have to simply the explanations of 4 & 5 dramatically (which I don't think would be a bad thing)

Such as:

Option #4

"You character gains X proficiencies every Y levels. You can spend these proficiencies to gain a knowledge in a limited area of expertise."

"If the area is very narrow or specialized (Knots, for example), it would be associated with an ability score with a +2 bonus."

"Most skills cover a general talent over one area of expertise (Climb or Stealth, for example). Such talents would be associated with an ability score with no modifier."

"Some skills might equate to a profession (such as Sailor). Such broad talents cover a variety of lesser skills uses and would be associated with an ability score check at a -2 penalty."

Option #5

"Your character gains X number of skill points for each level. If you select a skill associated with your class as shown below, you gain a +3 bonus to skill roll."

"Fighter: Athletics, Craft, Knowledge (Heraldry, Strategy, Monster Lore), Intimidate [only listing one class for brevity sake]"

"Skills:"

"Acrobatics: Used for jumping, running, pole vaulting and other physical activities."

"Stealth: Used for hiding, moving about silently or for palming small objects easily fit in the hand." [abbreviating list for brevity's sake]

If there's space for option 5, list some sample DCs, otherwise leave them out. Folks can then either look up DC's from their favorite version, make them up use the ones listed in 5E adventures and such.

 

[Tallifer]

It would be nice to see options though, in the core book

1) Your character knows what you know [OD&D/1E/BECMI]

I experienced this in the early 1980s. Players trying to leverage their knowledge in chemistry, physics or forensics. Players trying to invent things centuries before using the materials at hand plus some magic.

Very creative but it all left a definite distaste in my mouth as a lover of history, fantasy and literature. I suppose though that there is a certain type of player who likes to play a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Furthermore anyone would be hardpressed to play a man with exactly the mindframe and weltanschauung of the middle ages or Middle Earth or Dark Sun.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I wouldn't mind a simpler system. I think a system like 4e, but without constantly increasing skills by going up levels.

Also, I think I'd like to remove the social skills. After a long time considering this, I really found it better when people had to role play social situations rather than make skill checks for them.

In 2e, even the people who were bad at acting at least TRIED to roleplay out a situation. Once we started playing 3e, I started getting situations like:

King: "I cannot lend you my army, I need it to protect the kingdom, you'll need to find some other way to stop the rampaging orcs."

Players would say "Come ON!" and rolling a dice. Getting a 34 in Diplomacy, everyone laughing and then expecting the King to change his mind when all they said was "Come ON!"

 

[Elf Witch]

I wouldn't mind a simpler system. I think a system like 4e, but without constantly increasing skills by going up levels.

Also, I think I'd like to remove the social skills. After a long time considering this, I really found it better when people had to role play social situations rather than make skill checks for them.

In 2e, even the people who were bad at acting at least TRIED to roleplay out a situation. Once we started playing 3e, I started getting situations like:

King: "I cannot lend you my army, I need it to protect the kingdom, you'll need to find some other way to stop the rampaging orcs."

Players would say "Come ON!" and rolling a dice. Getting a 34 in Diplomacy, everyone laughing and then expecting the King to change his mind when all they said was "Come ON!"

As I said before without some kind of mechanic to help people who are not good talkers how do you handle it. He gives his horrible speech and you hand wave it away and let it succeed.

I have a good friend who loves the idea of playing a bard or swashbuckler type character he tried it once and failed in the older editions because he would get tongue tied and his character became ineffective. With the skill check he now plays them more often.

I myself suffer from aphasia from a major stoke and sometimes my brain starts farting and I can't get out what I am trying to say. If there was not a skill role I would never even try and play a character that uses bluff or diplomacy.

The game is supposed to allow us to play fantasy characters unhampered by real life restraints. Should my friend who only has no use of one arm and the other is very weak not be allowed to play a fighter because in real life he can't swing a weapon?

It is very easy to get around the I roll my dice issue. Ask them what do you say and after they say it have them roll the dice giving bonuses and minuses on how well or how badly they do. If all someone said in my game was come on to get the king to give them help they would face major penalties on the roll.

My DM does this he also has noticed that when I am having issues he will ask do you just want to roll.

 

[Quickleaf]

I voted "something else" because I want ALL of the different approaches to skills to be accommodated. Make skills modular so they work fine in broad strokes or in deep granularity, depending on what each player likes. There really is nothing to lose with modularity (in the case of skills).

 

[howandwhy99]

I voted no skills, but I have a strong premonition this won't be the case in any option.

IIRC the 6 Ability scores were being bandied about as the basic 6 skills for bonuses and check DCs. I think that will be central to the initial game.

 

[Mircoles]

I like how skills are handled in 4e. You no longer have to worry about the Pc's not having the appropriate skill for the encounter.

Skill based systems tend to annoy me now.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I think Skills should remain essentially as they are in 4th Edition. What I would try to change though is I would like them to tweak the skill challnge system. I love the concept, but the implementation is just a bit lacking.

- We need a much clearer suggestions for what should happen on a failed check, and a better reward for a successful challenge.

- We need suggestions for ways to engage every player at the table instead of the 1 or 2 who just happen to have maxed skills suitable to the challenge;

- We need better isolation of Utility powers for combat from Utility powers for noncombat; Right now almost no one will take a skill oriented utility power unless it has a clear combat application. The original intent was to prevent the 'I have no more Fireball memorized but I have 3 spells for Water breathing memorized', and to an extent they have kind of failed that.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

As I said before without some kind of mechanic to help people who are not good talkers how do you handle it. He gives his horrible speech and you hand wave it away and let it succeed.

Yeah, if someone has a high charisma, that's likely what I'd do. If they were dead set on playing a high charisma person but were bad at roleplaying. I'd make allowances for people who just CAN'T roleplay for some reason.

I know the reason the social skills exist. And I was 100% in favor of them back when 3e came out. However, over time they have encouraged lazy behavior on the parts of players.

I want uncharismatic players who want to play charismatic PCs. But I think the disadvantages that came with the skill check mechanics are too large a price to pay for that ability.

It is very easy to get around the I roll my dice issue. Ask them what do you say and after they say it have them roll the dice giving bonuses and minuses on how well or how badly they do. If all someone said in my game was come on to get the king to give them help they would face major penalties on the roll.

And this is my major problem with trying to use the skill mechanics for social skills. I ask people what they say. They say "I convince him to help us". I say "How?" They say "I don't know, I say something convincing, I have +20 to diplomacy, so I'm very convincing".

So, here I have a couple of choices:

-Give him a penalty for not roleplaying out the scene or even giving me any reasons why the person should help them, even if said in a non-roleplaying way.

-Don't give him a penalty because he didn't roleplay poorly and just accept the roll at face value.

But given the reason for allowing skill checks in the first place is to allow people who are bad at acting or can't act out their check for some reason to still play a charismatic character...isn't it counter productive to then give them a penalty to their rolls for not acting out their roll?

And how big of a penalty do I give them if I'm giving them one? This one is edition dependent, but in 4e, if I give a 1st level character -5, I'm removing the entire bonus they get from training, possibly making their character no longer the best at diplomacy. If the party has a choice between allowing the person who is bad at roleplaying to make a roll at -5 or allow the person who is good at roleplaying to roll at even odds or even a bonus for good roleplaying, it might be a better idea for them to choose the better roleplayer with modifiers, once again putting the poor roleplayer in a position of "not being able to play the charismatic character". If the penalty is too big, you are basically ignoring the results of the dice and deciding based on roleplaying anyways.

If you give out a -2, then the penalty probably doesn't matter. If a penalty doesn't matter, then why bother giving it out?

And when it comes down to that, I normally decide not to give out modifiers for poor OR good roleplaying. Which, comes down to no one even trying to roleplay, because there's just no reason to try.

 

[Stormonu]

I'm for skills for social settings, for many of the same reasons noted above. I've had several wallflower players who have benefitted from these rules, allowing them to play characters they've always dreamed of being, but can't for one reason or another in real life.

At the same time, I do think social skills should have some of the limits that combat attacks do. Bad tactics are bad tactics and yelling "I hit him with my sword" only gets you so far. The players and the DM have to work together to create the narrative; it isn't all the player's job nor the DM's, but they can help each other.

Likewise, I'm not in favor of the one-roll-converts-him-to-my-side mechanic. You want to convince the baron to help you? You need a number of successes, the players aren't the only static actors (what's that? The baron's Vizier has a +20 to Diplomacy as well and is arguing against the players?) and all the checks aren't straight-up Diplomacy checks by one individual.

 

[Elf Witch]

When I DM I tell my players up front that they have to try and role play rolling the dice is not enough in social skills. My players know that saying I talk to king here is my role is not going to cut it because I won't allow it.

It is not the fact that you can roll a skill check and not role play that has made players lazy it is DMs who allow it who have made players lazy.

There are so many ways to handle this my more confident players role play it out they actually do the speech. Depending on the speech I may not even ask for a roll.


My more shy easily tongue tied players may try and role play it out or they tell me I am going to cover these topics with the king and point out these facts. Then they roll if they roll well enough they gave a rousing speech.

Skill checks don't stop role playing any more than combat rolls stop role playing.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I love skills, and whilst 3E was a little over the top (and made some skills necessary vs. others pointless), 4E felt a little slim to me. Skill challenges didn't help, as written. I see two ways to proceed:

Math
Skills, like attacks, are based on numbers and difficulties. Complex tasks ought to be modelled as Markov chains (I did this for 4E and it worked well - limit the number of actions the PCs can take before the task is over, move on a step for a success, back (or stagnant) for a failure with narration for each step of the task). This all relies on getting the numbers right, as stats go up, +x per level bonuses come in and items get better (making it a non-linear problem to balance). If numbers are to be used, don't make things inflate much with level.

Non-math
Skills are determined by level (novice, master, etc.), not numbers. If you have a given level, you can do given things. If you're short, make a stat-roll to see if you pull it off. If you're very short of the required level, it's more difficult. Example: disarm a trap, difficulty 'master'; if you're a master in this skill, it's done. If you're only trained, make a dexterity roll and try to get 10+, if you're only a novice, get 15+. This has simplicity on it's side, but potentially loses nuance (in my example each level is a +5 bonus for instance).

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

When I DM I tell my players up front that they have to try and role play rolling the dice is not enough in social skills. My players know that saying I talk to king here is my role is not going to cut it because I won't allow it.

And I encourage it do. But I don't require it, for the above reasons. And, with my players the adage is, anything that is not banned is permitted.

If even one of them gets away without roleplaying, they will all try to get away with it. You don't know how many times I've said "Tell me the reasons I should help you" and some player stared at me for a good 5 minutes saying "Umm....I...umm....well, I can't come up with anything, but my character is very smart. He comes up with something even if I can't. I rolled a 35 for diplomacy. A 35! There's no way that fails."

I have one player who absolutely hates roleplaying more than a sentence or two with NPCs. He is the one that turned it into a joke. He just says "Come ON!", announces his 40 on his diplomacy check and watches the entire table laugh as he pulls his version of "Diplomacy". The joke being that he has so much skill that he didn't need pretty words to convince anyone, even if he got a penalty for poor roleplaying, he would get more than high enough to make any DC listed in published adventures(which we mostly played). So, the joke goes that all he has to do is yell out "Come ON!" and the NPCs will agree with him.

Another one of my players liked the joke so much, he made a character called Sancho (which is a character from the movie Orgasmo) who just says "I am Sancho" as all his diplomacy checks.

I argued a lot at first. But there's only so many times you can argue over the proper use of a diplomacy check before there are better battles to be fought.

Skill checks don't stop role playing any more than combat rolls stop role playing.

Skill checks don't STOP roleplaying, but they do hinder it. Rules CAN and do influence the "feeling" the game gives off. Just look at the number of people out there who hate 4e because it doesn't "feel" like D&D.

It's possible for people to role play even with skill checks. But my players have figured out that it isn't REQUIRED by the rules. And that I will follow the rules. So, what isn't required, isn't done.

The only way they'll stop again is if the rules don't allow them to pick up a dice as a replacement for roleplaying.

 

[Elf Witch]

And I encourage it do. But I don't require it, for the above reasons. And, with my players the adage is, anything that is not banned is permitted.

If even one of them gets away without roleplaying, they will all try to get away with it. You don't know how many times I've said "Tell me the reasons I should help you" and some player stared at me for a good 5 minutes saying "Umm....I...umm....well, I can't come up with anything, but my character is very smart. He comes up with something even if I can't. I rolled a 35 for diplomacy. A 35! There's no way that fails."

I have one player who absolutely hates roleplaying more than a sentence or two with NPCs. He is the one that turned it into a joke. He just says "Come ON!", announces his 40 on his diplomacy check and watches the entire table laugh as he pulls his version of "Diplomacy". The joke being that he has so much skill that he didn't need pretty words to convince anyone, even if he got a penalty for poor roleplaying, he would get more than high enough to make any DC listed in published adventures(which we mostly played). So, the joke goes that all he has to do is yell out "Come ON!" and the NPCs will agree with him.

Another one of my players liked the joke so much, he made a character called Sancho (which is a character from the movie Orgasmo) who just says "I am Sancho" as all his diplomacy checks.

I argued a lot at first. But there's only so many times you can argue over the proper use of a diplomacy check before there are better battles to be fought.


Skill checks don't STOP roleplaying, but they do hinder it. Rules CAN and do influence the "feeling" the game gives off. Just look at the number of people out there who hate 4e because it doesn't "feel" like D&D.

It's possible for people to role play even with skill checks. But my players have figured out that it isn't REQUIRED by the rules. And that I will follow the rules. So, what isn't required, isn't done.

The only way they'll stop again is if the rules don't allow them to pick up a dice as a replacement for roleplaying.

I can understand your frustrations I really can. It sounds to me that your players don't really want to role play all that much. I don't see how that would change just because they took skills out.

Have you tried talking to your players and telling them that you want them to role play more? If you really believe that it is the skill rolls making them not role play house rule them out of the game.

You are the DM you don't have to be a slave to the rules.

 

[DonTadow]

I like skills the way they are described by Mearls in September.

There are no skills persay. Abilities are what you roll for everything. However, certain activities receive a bonus based on , say, either feat choices or special ability choices.

Instead of class skills, classes give a set ability bonus for certain abilities. Fighters strength and constitution, wizards intelligenct etc.

 

[Wormwood]

There are no skills persay. Abilities are what you roll for everything. However, certain activities receive a bonus based on , say, either feat choices or special ability choices.

I would *love* that system. Old school yet elegant.

 

[DonTadow]

I can understand your frustrations I really can. It sounds to me that your players don't really want to role play all that much. I don't see how that would change just because they took skills out.

Have you tried talking to your players and telling them that you want them to role play more? If you really believe that it is the skill rolls making them not role play house rule them out of the game.

You are the DM you don't have to be a slave to the rules.

Yeah, you can't make someone role play if they don't want to roleplay. However, you can choose whose in your roleplaying group.

I do like the ole, do i expect someone to swing a sword analogy though, limited. I expect players to be able to come up with solutions and tactics and use thier characters as extension of that. I want social skills. I believe social skills represent how a person "comes off" not necessarily what a person says.

The problem is not someone with a high diplomacy, it's that systems allow too high skill bonuses and no system has good diplomacy rulesets. In my pathfinder game, i have a guy who gets a +15 at 4th level on diplomacy skill checks. All he's using is the core and advanced books. I pretty much canot argue the rules, just that the rules are broke.

Social skills need a set dc, which means npcs and pcs need a set check DC or defense against them. Thus I also like dfenses for each skill.

 

[Hassassin]

You are the DM you don't have to be a slave to the rules.

Or play by their rules and have the +20 diplomacy aristocrat convince them to go on quests, because "the servants are busy".

No, I don't recommend this.

 

[LeStryfe79]

Dials

I think the 5e skill system will and should have a complexity dial. In other words:

Basic: Gives the player a small bonus to all attributes when used for a skill check.
Advanced: Allows the player to choose a skill package, with a number of themed sets available.
Master: The player chooses individual skills from a huge list of specific proficiencies.

...or something like that.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I like 4e's skill system, for the most part. I can envision some tweaking, for sure--+3 instead of +5 for Training, then maybe +2 for Mastering; slightly different Skill list, etc.--but in main scope, I'm pretty happy with it.

I also like things like Perform and Craft, but I'd like to see it handled differently than the core adventuring skills.