D&D 5E Skills Redux

[CapnZapp]

I much prefer just a (cha) roll, and then the player can suggest what proficiency they'd like to apply and how. Hang out in the temple district? (cha) religion might work. Or (cha) persuasion. Or (cha) intimidate.

My takeaways from this thread?
I like might. It's a definite gap in the current skill lists.

I want to roll acrobatics and athletics into each other. They seem redundant when I can choose the stat the roll uses anyway. Also see the next point about their declining value.

I want to remove skill checks from the combat system to fix 'monsters don't grapple well' and related issues. So grapple and the like will henceforth be an appropriate attack roll vs a saving throw.

My personal flavour of investigate vs perception is one of active vs passive: ie - investigate applies if you have to do something, perception applies if you just stand back and observe. Investigation checks tend to have lower DCs, or make more things possible. Perception is able to be used quickly and usually more safely. Passive checks are reserved for one half of opposed checks or so I can eyeball things I can't be bothered with a roll for.

Good thoughts overall.

Since I don't want to completely overhaul shoves/grapples/disarms etc Might is my solution. Any "mighty" monster get proficiency, which fixes the worst WTF moments visavi grappling.

Combining athletics and acrobatics is an interesting thought. Especially with Might in the game. Do you have a suggestion for a name? Gymnastics? (The core difference between Might and either of Athletics and Acrobatics is that the latter are things you achieve by training; the former are things you do merely because you're awesome)

I tried the active/passive approach, but that was sabotaged by the module itself, which calls for Perception rolls even when the players aren't actively searching. In the end, I've decided "Investigation" is simply a frankenskill with hugely inconsistent usage that I want gone from the game, so I've removed it.

 

[Sadras]

Of course, this only matters if the monster have Might proficiency. But I find it easier to accept that big brutish monsters have something primitive like "Might" than actual Athletics training.

Which is one reason for adding Might to the game I do not like how fighters can wrestle down monsters much bigger and beefier than themselves, just because the designers didn't give them skill proficiencies. With Might I solve this particular issue without having to enter a discussion on why a monster has trained to swim and climb and wrestle. They aren't good grapplers (which you still need Athletics for), they are just hard to keep down because of their sheer Might!

Same with not getting shoved or pushed. No formal training needed - if you look mighty you probably are.

If you allow me a moment to play devil's advocate here.

From your entire post above, it appears that the problem you're experiencing is not so much due to a lack of a skill within the PHB but a lack of a monster ability. If you don't want your fighter or mage to be able to pin a bullete perhaps instead of creating an entirely new skill called Might you give the bullete advantage on Strength checks, with a +5 bonus on such checks for each size it is larger than its opponent/s or something like that.

To me, your concerns above are valid, but your solution by introducing a Might skill is not a practical one, rather create the Might trait for monsters and state it more elegantly than I have above

 

[Ristamar]

I could possibly get behind a new Might skill, but only if the DM bellows out "TEST YOUR MIGHT!" using the Mortal Kombat announcer voice before every Might check made by the PCs.

 

[Corwin]

What's your point, Corwin?

Same point I've been making.

D&D is obviously a game where you "feature fish" if you have even the slightest inclination to create a effective character, so...?

Sorry, but you're leaping to conclusions here.

Just because your players exploit the rules, in the manner they do, doesn't mean, "D&D is obviously a game where you [do so]." Or, at least, I don't believe it was designed with that methodology in mind as an assumed base. Given that plenty of people play it, while not doing so, leads me to believe some ways of approaching 5e generate less headaches than others.

That is, what do you think about the differences between my 21 skills and the PHB eighteen? Do you feel I have succeeded in removing seldomly used skills, or rather, to consolidate them?

You are increasing the total number of skills, while simultaneously hoping to make them all more important. To me this means, as a holistic percentage, your PCs have become less skilled. In an overall sense, at least. Unless you give out more skills training. Does that make sense?

What I'm getting at is, if you consider a few of the current PHB skills are pointless (lets say just 3 for ease of math), that mean a v.human fighter has training in a third of the effective skill field (15/5=33.3%). But now, with your 21 useful skills, he is trained in less than a fourth (21/5=23.8%). This leads to less competent adventuring.

I'm particularly thinking about 1) how trapfinding is now moved from Perception* to Dungeoneering.

Will traps, set in forests for example, still use Dungeoneering?

 

[Caliban]

If you have a point you can express without the snark, I will respond.

But that is a response. Or were you just making sure that I knew you weren't going to respond further by responding about not responding?

 

[Sadras]

Will traps, set in forests for example, still use Dungeoneering?

So do we base the skill for trap-finding on the material components of the trap (Arcana for magical traps) or the location of the trap (Dungeoneering for a trap in a Dungeon)? What about a trap in a forest or underwater? Would the trap-finder need to at least be familiar with the terrain?

 

[Corwin]

So do we base the skill for trap-finding on the material components of the trap (Arcana for magical traps) or the location of the trap (Dungeoneering for a trap in a Dungeon)? What about a trap in a forest or underwater? Would the trap-finder need to at least be familiar with the terrain?

yeah. When I see a skill like Dungeoneering, it always makes me wonder when we'll see: Mountaineering, Waterneering, Deserteering, and so on.

 

[Sadras]

yeah. When I see a skill like Dungeoneering, it always makes me wonder when we'll see: Mountaineering, Waterneering, Deserteering, and so on.

I agree, After giving it some thought, I believe the Perception skill works best and the DM can either use the advantage/disadvantage mechanic as well as the DC range to infer familiarity with terrain, material components utilised in the trap and the like.
One could create a quick-and-dirty home-brewed table for modifiers like Survival's subskill tracking system should one prefer to go to that level of detail, but at the end of the day trap-detection should fall under the Perception skill. For me its the most simplest and elegent of solutions.

 

[Redthistle]

Investigation = Gather Information = Investigation. Different terms, same thing.

Another way I think of it: Investigation works with Insight and Perception. I usually think of it as it applies to solving crimes:

Wisdom (Insight) may be needed to develop an understanding of possible motives: who would want to take the action?

Wisdom (Perception) gains one the knowledge of the material aspects of the scene(s): what physically exists as perceived by the senses?

Intelligence (Investigation) is required to learn how and when the opportunity arose for any given perpetrator to act, thereby narrowing the list of suspects. Who had motive and access at the time that the critical event occurred?

More generally, Investigation also applies to downtime for all types of research. Whether it might be a bard looking for obscure historical information, a wizard striving to understand a scroll written with bad handwriting in an unknown language (good humor if the wizard lacks the comprehend languages spell, and that's what the scroll itself contains), or a rogue trying to learn what protections, physical or magical, a wealthy merchant might have installed on a shop, Investigation is the go-to skill.

Hopefully, this gives you some tools to rein in Perception a bit, and give Investigation some elbow room in your campaign.

 

[Satyrn]

I can't imagine anyone playing where players are given the right to create a background that they get to use with no DM input.

So you're right, I'm obviously restricting free background skill swaps in a Redux with the explicit intent to restrict skills. I did not think I had to mention that

Prepare to have your mind blown: I play that way, where players are given the right to create a background that they get to use with no DM input. Well, nearly no DM input. The only piece that requires my DM approval is the invention of a new feature.

They are free to pick any 2 skills, any pair of tools/languages and any existing background feature.

It's because I do this, and because I think the book says that it's the default way do it, that I suggested you be explicit in how you do it.


(. . . and the invention of a new skill - though that's likely to be shot down with "Ha! No. We have too many already." As for inventing new tools or languages my approval is probably not necessary, because I see my reaction being "Yeah, whatever.")