D&D 5E Skills in 5e

[AbdulAlhazred]

In my perfect version of D&D++, there would be more combat-determining skills.

As a fencer, I am offended that anyone limber can pick up a rapier and fight with equal proficiency. It takes about a decade of training to fight at your peak in any combat sport.

Of course, this would be part of my fighters-get-not-enough-love-at-high-level rant in general, so... yeah.

I'm not sure how insisting that PCs need to spend 10 years to become good fighters is 'not enough love', it would seem like maybe 'too much love', lol. No doubt you are probably correct, in general. Skill systems never work like real life though. Think of your character as being more destined to greatness than anything else. Certainly there are people who can jump into something and do extremely well at it quite quickly, just amp that up a bit

 

[Li Shenron]

To expand on the original topic of skills, I would also be interested in seeing a module for self-training skills i.e. skills that get better as you use them.

I suppose that with bounded accuracy, the skill max bonus (or skill dice) may always remain fairly small, thus the increases will be quite spare in the course of 20 levels compared to 3e, and this is maybe not the best case for this option.

But I still would like to see some module for this...

 

[sheadunne]

The poll is missing . . .

Skill only (no stat)

Which I lean toward. Certainly no more than a small bonus from stat, or even an either/or situation where it's . . .

Stat or skill

I'm not a fan of Stat + Skill or Stat = Skill.

I like stats being useful for creation and then pretty much ignored. Maybe it's my burnout of 3x and I'm swinging the other way now. A happy medium is what I'm looking for.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The poll is missing . . .

Skill only (no stat)

Which I lean toward. Certainly no more than a small bonus from stat, or even an either/or situation where it's . . .

Stat or skill

I'm not a fan of Stat + Skill or Stat = Skill.

I like stats being useful for creation and then pretty much ignored. Maybe it's my burnout of 3x and I'm swinging the other way now. A happy medium is what I'm looking for.

That is how I make my games, just the skills.

 

[Sadrik]

The poll is missing . . .

Skill only (no stat)

Which I lean toward. Certainly no more than a small bonus from stat, or even an either/or situation where it's . . .

Stat or skill

I'm not a fan of Stat + Skill or Stat = Skill.

I like stats being useful for creation and then pretty much ignored. Maybe it's my burnout of 3x and I'm swinging the other way now. A happy medium is what I'm looking for.

What are stats good for then, if you do not use them? You are suggesting there are no stat checks? So breaking down a door or lifting a slab... That means you roll a skill check...

You will have to explain your thoughts on this. There is no uses of stat rolls in your conception. I am intrigued what that would look like. I am not sure it would work...

 

[sheadunne]

What are stats good for then, if you do not use them? You are suggesting there are no stat checks? So breaking down a door or lifting a slab... That means you roll a skill check...

You will have to explain your thoughts on this. There is no uses of stat rolls in your conception. I am intrigued what that would look like. I am not sure it would work...

Works just fine. I use stats for saving throws (all 6) and players get feats instead of fixed numbers to all things related to ability scores. I tried to explain it in another thread, but it got all jumbled, so I let it drop.

Breaking down a door and lifting a slab I've put into an Athletics skill, just like rescue workers are trained to break down doors, etc. Lifting is under athletics as well.

I use stats as potential and not as actual representations. I like the idea of players defining what the stat represents and not a generic bonus to all things related. Just a different way of looking at things.

 

[Ferghis]

I really liked Cook's idea of having 5 levels of training (untrained, trained, expert, master, and god-like, or something like that). Anything below your skill level is an automatic success. Anything above is automatic failure - perhaps you could try one level above at a penalty (disadvantage?). Anything at your level, you roll for.

Within this framework, natural talent still counts, and so does training, albeit in a completely different way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Works just fine. I use stats for saving throws (all 6) and players get feats instead of fixed numbers to all things related to ability scores. I tried to explain it in another thread, but it got all jumbled, so I let it drop.

Breaking down a door and lifting a slab I've put into an Athletics skill, just like rescue workers are trained to break down doors, etc. Lifting is under athletics as well.

I use stats as potential and not as actual representations. I like the idea of players defining what the stat represents and not a generic bonus to all things related. Just a different way of looking at things.

Yeah, I don't get it either:

My character, Arnulf Schwarzenmusculature has a STR of 20. He's not trained in Athletics, he's just STRONG. You're telling me that he can't lift something that a 12 STR guy with Athletics training can lift? It makes no sense at all. Even in 4e raw shows of STR were ability checks, not skill checks. Your weaker guy might be as good, or even slightly better, at breaking down a door, but what would be the point of ability scores at all if they don't give you a benefit to doing things that rely on that sort of ability? I have a friend who is 4 inches taller and 70 lbs heavier than me. He's STRONG. No amount of my doing strength training will ever get me close to doing what he can do without breaking a sweat.

I think ability scores, to be useful at all, need to be directly involved in what your character can do well or not do well. After all their very purpose is to define the strong and weak points of the character. If they don't do that then why have them?

 

[Ferghis]

In addition to, or perhaps as an extension of, Monte's proposal, I would welcome additional abilities tied to a more "trained" skill, such as has been suggested above. Famously, in 4e, only those trained in Acrobatics, Arcana, and Heal could do certain things with those skills. Further, at expert and master levels, I would welcome additional abilities such as 4e's skill powers.

 

[sheadunne]

Yeah, I don't get it either:

My character, Arnulf Schwarzenmusculature has a STR of 20. He's not trained in Athletics, he's just STRONG. You're telling me that he can't lift something that a 12 STR guy with Athletics training can lift? It makes no sense at all. Even in 4e raw shows of STR were ability checks, not skill checks. Your weaker guy might be as good, or even slightly better, at breaking down a door, but what would be the point of ability scores at all if they don't give you a benefit to doing things that rely on that sort of ability? I have a friend who is 4 inches taller and 70 lbs heavier than me. He's STRONG. No amount of my doing strength training will ever get me close to doing what he can do without breaking a sweat.

I think ability scores, to be useful at all, need to be directly involved in what your character can do well or not do well. After all their very purpose is to define the strong and weak points of the character. If they don't do that then why have them?

No more of a disconnect that someone with a 20 strength being able to swim better than anyone else, as well as lift weights. I mean, can you imagine arnold swimming? Really? He's a better swimmer than Michael Phelps? It's all just a matter of perspective. I view it differently than you, and I'm okay with that.