D&D 5E Skills in 5e

[Sadrik]

The skill dice thing in the latest playtest is not bad but it does not feel like D&D. I would prefer a more succinct and simple system, like a +x modifier.

The trick they have to work out with the skill system is the optional bit. Can D&D have an optional skill system? I am not entirely sure.

Several games use stat or skill roll rather than the traditional stat + skill roll. So to make the skill system optional I think it would have to be the former where your skills are not linked to your stats at all. This is not the traditional skill system for D&D. Example:

You can make a DEX check to sneak, or you can make a Sneak check to sneak. both would be d20+x, perhaps the d20+x on the sneak roll would or could be marginally higher than a DEX check.

Skill system should be in I think. Just make it simple and clear and I think most people expect a stat + skill roll and not a stat roll or skill roll.

 

[Sadrik]

Another possibility is modifying the DC when you are skilled at something. Say for example you need to roll a knowledge check. Normally that would be an INT check. This would be say a DC 20 because it is an obscure piece of knowledge. With skill though it might be DC 15 (or some other number). In this way the player experiences the same roll (d20+INT) and announces they have the knowledge skill I suppose. On the DM's side though he selects the DC (as normal) and then applies the skill or no skill modifier. I think this could be a good way to handle it...

Also if the skill system is not used it changes nothing on the character sheet and how the game interfaces with the player. It is still just an INT check.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Another possibility is modifying the DC when you are skilled at something. Say for example you need to roll a knowledge check. Normally that would be an INT check. This would be say a DC 20 because it is an obscure piece of knowledge. With skill though it might be DC 15 (or some other number). In this way the player experiences the same roll (d20+INT) and announces they have the knowledge skill I suppose. On the DM's side though he selects the DC (as normal) and then applies the skill or no skill modifier. I think this could be a good way to handle it...

Also if the skill system is not used it changes nothing on the character sheet and how the game interfaces with the player. It is still just an INT check.

I don't see how that's different from a +5...

How about "being trained grants advantage on skill checks" and then of course you can get advantage from whatever other advantageous situations. That flattens the system so that the expert always has advantage, but anyone can do as well if they can come up with a clever solution or expend some resource, etc. You still have ability bonus, so some PCs will still be just plain better, within limits. Feats and such can still grant extra trained 'tricks' that nobody else can do, etc. and there can always be a few trained-only uses ala 4e.

Of course I'd also use a 4e-type skill list. The DDN one ROTS IMHO.

 

[Sadrik]

I don't see how that's different from a +5...

Its different for the obvious reason that it is built into the DMs side rather than the players side.

So, that is advantageous because then characters do not fundamentally change based on the skill options/modules the DM/players use. For example if the skill system were used, there would just be a list of skills on the character sheet, no number attached to them (perhaps the key stat though "[DEX]" etc.

The base line DC and assumption is that you do not use a skill system. Characters under this assumption have access to every skill the DCs are set at this base level. When using the skill module/system players have an unskilled penalty and a skilled bonus. So perhaps +2 to the DC for unskilled (harder to do) and -3 to the DC for skilled (easier to accomplish). Idk, just an idea. I do like the invisible nature of the numbers though.

How about "being trained grants advantage on skill checks" and then of course you can get advantage from whatever other advantageous situations. That flattens the system so that the expert always has advantage, but anyone can do as well if they can come up with a clever solution or expend some resource, etc. You still have ability bonus, so some PCs will still be just plain better, within limits. Feats and such can still grant extra trained 'tricks' that nobody else can do, etc. and there can always be a few trained-only uses ala 4e.

Advantage is basically a circumstance/luck modifier in the system as construed. If it became a skill bonus the circumstance/luck modifier would have to change to something else.

Of course I'd also use a 4e-type skill list. The DDN one ROTS IMHO.

I agree, a slightly expanded 4e skill list would be the best. Things like making stuff (crafting) should be included. However insight skill should be removed that is just a savings throw by another mechanic. Got to remove those types of skills.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The skill dice thing in the latest playtest is not bad but it does not feel like D&D. I would prefer a more succinct and simple system, like a +x modifier.

The trick they have to work out with the skill system is the optional bit. Can D&D have an optional skill system? I am not entirely sure.

Several games use stat or skill roll rather than the traditional stat + skill roll. So to make the skill system optional I think it would have to be the former where your skills are not linked to your stats at all. This is not the traditional skill system for D&D. Example:

You can make a DEX check to sneak, or you can make a Sneak check to sneak. both would be d20+x, perhaps the d20+x on the sneak roll would or could be marginally higher than a DEX check.

Skill system should be in I think. Just make it simple and clear and I think most people expect a stat + skill roll and not a stat roll or skill roll.

Skills used to be optional. In 2E the NWP fit ontop of the abillity check system because both were roll under, with ranks in nwps having less of an impact (you might take one or two additional ranks). The problem in d20 is d20 plus skill rank plus ability modifier is objectively better than d20 plus ability modifier. You could simply inverse the roll under mechanic to retain the math 2E had here. For example your DC for a skill or abililty check could simply be 20 minus your ranks in skill and your abillity score (not your modifier). The sbtraction wouldnt be an issue because you o it before play and record your rating on the character sheet. So someone with Dex of 15, has a 5 DC for Dex based skills.

 

[Sadrik]

Skills used to be optional. In 2E the NWP fit ontop of the abillity check system because both were roll under, with ranks in nwps having less of an impact (you might take one or two additional ranks). The problem in d20 is d20 plus skill rank plus ability modifier is objectively better than d20 plus ability modifier. You could simply inverse the roll under mechanic to retain the math 2E had here. For example your DC for a skill or abililty check could simply be 20 minus your ranks in skill and your abillity score (not your modifier). The sbtraction wouldnt be an issue because you o it before play and record your rating on the character sheet. So someone with Dex of 15, has a 5 DC for Dex based skills.

The 2e NWP system is something that we can aspire to in its simplicity but in actuality it really served as a hamper and an excruciating one at that. Before the NWP system you had a background that you roll (or picked from a chart) on there were really no rules per say to it too. but when something applied to it you could say... DM can I please apply my background to this situation. The DM might say in return yes you are a trapper therefore you should be able to know that. It was all very arbitrary. Then when NWP came out you had 3 or 4 of them +1 for each bonus language (which was INT based) depending on your class. Reading and writing was important and only the Mage and Priest could do it for 1 NWP, everyone else had to spend 2 NWP. So it was screwy to say the least.

Now the mechanics on how they worked. You made a roll against your stat when it applied to the skill and rolled lower. The argument then was now you are limited to what you can do. you can only do what your character sheet says you can do. So you can only read and write swim and a couple other things. It was too simplistic for today's... heck it was too simplistic then.

I do see that argument though, why limit a player and a DM to play in the constraints of a skill system? At the same time I see other players saying, I am not my character, I may be playing a 20 INT elf who has lived 200 years, I cannot know or understand what my character does and I want it modeled for me in the mechanics. I think both can be there though.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Pink Flowers: Stat + Roll, roll twice and take the best result if you have the skill

This bounds the math while making skilled characters more reliable.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The 2e NWP system is something that we can aspire to in its simplicity but in actuality it really served as a hamper and an excruciating one at that. Before the NWP system you had a background that you roll (or picked from a chart) on there were really no rules per say to it too. but when something applied to it you could say... DM can I please apply my background to this situation. The DM might say in return yes you are a trapper therefore you should be able to know that. It was all very arbitrary. Then when NWP came out you had 3 or 4 of them +1 for each bonus language (which was INT based) depending on your class. Reading and writing was important and only the Mage and Priest could do it for 1 NWP, everyone else had to spend 2 NWP. So it was screwy to say the least.

Now the mechanics on how they worked. You made a roll against your stat when it applied to the skill and rolled lower. The argument then was now you are limited to what you can do. you can only do what your character sheet says you can do. So you can only read and write swim and a couple other things. It was too simplistic for today's... heck it was too simplistic then.

I do see that argument though, why limit a player and a DM to play in the constraints of a skill system? At the same time I see other players saying, I am not my character, I may be playing a 20 INT elf who has lived 200 years, I cannot know or understand what my character does and I want it modeled for me in the mechanics. I think both can be there though.

Well, the move has been toward simpler skill systems I think in recent years, so I dont think the simplisticy of it would be a problem today. I have to say my memories of the nwp system were not the same as the reality when I went back and played 2E again after years of 3E. It got some things wrong for sure, but in a lot of ways I found it superior to the 3E or 4E skill system. I think the designers could draw a lot of good ideas from if (though I dont think you can do the roll under method for next, they would have to reverse it like I suggested).

You also have to keep in mind that the thief abilities were not part of the nwp system.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Its different for the obvious reason that it is built into the DMs side rather than the players side.

So, that is advantageous because then characters do not fundamentally change based on the skill options/modules the DM/players use. For example if the skill system were used, there would just be a list of skills on the character sheet, no number attached to them (perhaps the key stat though "[DEX]" etc.

The base line DC and assumption is that you do not use a skill system. Characters under this assumption have access to every skill the DCs are set at this base level. When using the skill module/system players have an unskilled penalty and a skilled bonus. So perhaps +2 to the DC for unskilled (harder to do) and -3 to the DC for skilled (easier to accomplish). Idk, just an idea. I do like the invisible nature of the numbers though.

Advantage is basically a circumstance/luck modifier in the system as construed. If it became a skill bonus the circumstance/luck modifier would have to change to something else.

I agree, a slightly expanded 4e skill list would be the best. Things like making stuff (crafting) should be included. However insight skill should be removed that is just a savings throw by another mechanic. Got to remove those types of skills.

No, there doesn't need to be a different 'circumstance modifier', you just have a capped system. An expert always has a favorable circumstance, other characters may have one now and then, depending. If a situation is more elaborate, where a PC with training say goes to a lot of trouble to arrange things so failure is very unlikely then use some sort of SC mechanic or if it is something really straightforward just make the check "succeed or succeed with complication". Those sorts of situations will actually come up fairly rarely.

 

[Li Shenron]

I thought about it for a while before voting, but ultimately I went with the classic "stat + skill + roll".

I want training to make a difference, but I also want natural talents (stats) to make a difference, both for those trained and those untrained. I like however that training can (in the long term at least) be potentially more beneficial than talent, so with the current +5 cap to stat bonuses, I would like the bonus from training to go well beyond +5.

I definitely want the roll into the mechanic, although it would be ok for me if e.g. trained characters have automatic success on easy tasks (something like the early draft of Skill Mastery for the Rogue for example).

I expect trained characters to be more reliable than untrained ones, and this will easily always be the case, more trained = more bonus = better % success.

But I also expect trained characters to be able to achieve better results that are out of reach for untrained characters. I like the idea that there are locks that are just too hard for anyone below a certain skill training (or skill total, including stat bonus) to pick. This means that training = advantage is not good for what I personally want from a skill system.

Static bonus or skill dice, I don't mind so much. I was totally fine with 3e skills, but I see a potential in skill dice too.

---

I have however a long-time issue with characters using untrained skills...

Sometimes I just don't like that ALL PCs get to roll. Just think about it: if you call for a Listen check to notice something and TWO PCs can roll the check, it's a little bit like one PC rolling with advantage, because one successful roll is enough. Now just try to figure out to what kind of advantage is equivalent the case of FOUR or more PCs being allowed to roll Listen for the same instance.

There are ways to mitigate this. In 3ed there was a rule of thumb to let the PC with highest skill bonus roll, and add a bonus for every other PC in the party.

Anyway, I would like to see this issue discussed by WotC, because I haven't found a way to handle it nicely. And at the moment 5e does not seem to prevent untrained PCs to roll anything... at least 3e had several skills that you just couldn't use unless you were trained, most notably Knowledge (you could only roll for very common knowledge if untrained), but IIRC currently everyone can roll any Knowledge check even untrained.

Now imagine what happens once your players figure this out: every time you grant the Wizard a Kn:Arcana check and she fails, all the other players can ask to try the same check? This would change the party rates of success quite a lot.

Maybe untrained skills could have a DC limit on checks that can be even attempted, a limit like e.g. 15 (hence lower than the max roll result)?