D&D 5E Skills that you u are not proficient with

[jayoungr]

Why not ask the DM if he'd be willing to try running the skill system as written for one campaign (or at least a few sessions) and see if he thinks it's too powerful? He might find that it works better than he expects.

 

[akr71]

I think it sucks when a DM house-rules something just to make it more familiar to what they are used to. As a DM I have created a number of house-rules, but not without informing all players first.

Also, I think the skill system works fine as written and I am confused as to why the DM feels it needs to be modified. I also don't burden my players with needless and repetitive skill checks. I use them sure, but I don't want to hamstring my players creativity by asking for a ability/skill check.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If these people are your friends, don't leave the game. Let the DM have his little house rule experiment and demonstrate to him how much it sucks as almost everybody is unable to climb out of pits, jump over small gaps, or notice anything. Even better, talk with the other players about this and consider leaving a gap in one of those skills so that the game-wide frustration can be well-demonstrated.

I would strongly argue against this advice. Engaging in passive aggressive methods to derail the game is never the best method to deal with a rules or metagame issue, especially with friends. If you choose to remain, you also choose to accept, to the best of your ability, the outcomes that can happen. If ever those outcomes overwhelm your ability to stomach them, the proper response is to talk to your friends about it and work out a solution or remove yourself from the problem, not to intentionally try to wreck the game to show how the rule sucks.

 

[iserith]

This is really sad now, I am thinking about leaving the game

We have two house rules, one will give you -5 in skills you are not trained. The other gives adds half your level to your trained skills.

With books' rules at level 2, your maximum prof is 2 and your min is 0, As a Bard you gained +1 in all skills tnx to Jack of All Trades which means you are 1 step behind trained skills.
In our game at level 2, maximum prof is 3 and minimum is -5, as a Bard you gained +1 for JoAT and will be 8 steps behind trained skills.
Totally unfair !

JoAT does has not designed to prevent Bard to be less dafter as others who are not trained, its designed to makes Bard be good even on non trained skills .....

As it says in PHB page 53, as it describes the class " Many Bards Prefer to stick to sidelines in combat, using their magic to inspire their allies and hinder their foes ( which refers to Bardic Inspiration ) blah blah blah They have a wide ranging knowledge of many subjects and natural aptitude that lets them do almost anything well ( refers to Jack of All Trades ).



Our DM does not accept my reasons and refused my request , I asked him to make Jack of All Trades fill half of the new gap :S

Its unfair, beyond words.

Does your DM ask for a lot of ability checks? Do the players themselves ask to make ability checks?

 

[Inoeex]

It doesn't really sound like you're enjoying it based on what you said in your other thread.

You like your group and the DM's stories and such; to me it seems like 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' if this one Skill check thing makes you quite. One thing that 5e is excellent at, is opening up the flood gates for creative freedom in terms of making an interesting character. You have to think in terms of "character" more than "mechanics", however. The 5e system lets someone play an "intellectual fighter, always wanted to be a wizard but never had the opportunity and always forced into physical roles because of his natural strength and size"...without penalizing you.

I do enjoy the whole story, but I dont like how my rights are being ignored both as a Noble and a Bard. I am starting to doubt his partiality and fairness, I know he is not doing them deliberately but he does not listen to me either I have talked to him many times. and I dont want this game to affect our friendship.

@Inoeex -- I've just struck on an idea that, while it won't help you in the short term, will help you a lot more in the long term. Jack of All Trades specifically says that it adds half your Proficiency Bonus. Even with your DM's house rules, shouldn't that mean you should get half of the "half level" bonus too (or, essentially, one-quarter level bonus)? If the half-level thing applies to all skill checks as *part of* being Proficient, it seems like it *should* add to Jack of All Trades as well. Again, this won't get you much early on, but by level 8 it effectively doubles the benefit of Jack of All Trades. By level 12, you'll have a solid +5 to all non-proficient skills--eliminating the normal penalty. At maximum level, you'd have +8, or +3 after the non-proficient penalty is added in (compared to the normal +16, with no penalty).

He does not consider the " half level" thingy as PB, it wont help. I was thinking the whole day about my decision to leave the game, and the main reason is I think the whole thing is not fair,I even gave him an example of level 10 which with new rules the min PB will -5 while the max is 13 ..... JoAT is totally ruined and everyone knows that I chose Bard over Warlock becasue of JoAT, I wanted to try everything.
In our game Expertise only applies to PB which are provided by the standard chart given in the book.

As a DM there are times I will let anyone roll an Ability check to learn something. And there are times I will only allow someone proficient in the skill (I would include Jack of All Trades in this) make an Ability check. As a DM it's my prerogative to do this and I let my players know that's how I roll.

I even suggest him that, to let only those who are proficient in the skills + Bard ( due to JoAT ) have the rights to initiate an action which requires a skill check.


But all I have said is kinda denied.
As a Noble the feature PHB gave is almost being ignored, I have not said anything about that yet, I dont want him to feel like I am forcing myself/opinions to his decisions but ..... I chose my character and background according on what has been described in PHB. I think its totally unfair to obliterate my class feature and my background's.

Just a little example of disrespecting a prince ---> On our second session, I attempted to play my Lyre on the stage. There is annual crowning celebration for the king. I played my Lyre and I made some little fire works with my Minor Illusion, then people started to call me clown, some people were shouting "Good job Clown" Like I was an entertainer not a Prince, while my Mother the Queen of Elf Kinds where stand right there and my Father the Kind/Lord of High Elves were beside her with my siblings.

 

[Inoeex]

Why not ask the DM if he'd be willing to try running the skill system as written for one campaign (or at least a few sessions) and see if he thinks it's too powerful? He might find that it works better than he expects.

He did this because it is not fair at low levels, a player with high ability scores can be successfull on everything he/she wanna try.
But I dont get why it has to meddling with Bard JoAT to vanish the feature ? As I said I even asked him to let JoAT to fill the half the new gap of being trained and not being trained in skills. He declined it, he said " I have a different idea about this matter unfortunately"

I think it sucks when a DM house-rules something just to make it more familiar to what they are used to. As a DM I have created a number of house-rules, but not without informing all players first.

May I ask what would you do if your house-rule makes a player unhappy or sad cuz its almost vanishing his class feature? Like in this case, or any other house rules. What would you do if a player or some of them have objections over your rule because if you had applied it before you start the game they would have changed their class/race/background

I would strongly argue against this advice. Engaging in passive aggressive methods to derail the game is never the best method to deal with a rules or metagame issue, especially with friends. If you choose to remain, you also choose to accept, to the best of your ability, the outcomes that can happen. If ever those outcomes overwhelm your ability to stomach them, the proper response is to talk to your friends about it and work out a solution or remove yourself from the problem, not to intentionally try to wreck the game to show how the rule sucks.

I really dont want my friendship to get damaged, I decided to leave since he said he wont change the rules and he did not accept to modify JoAT in in accordance with new rules.
Its his world, I respect him, I dont like the rules I can leave the game sadly.
Because I know myself, and deep inside me there will always be a negative feeling that I treated unfairly. While some other players are getting favored, for example our Theif has a Draconic Lance and he can summon and dismiss it by his will. He will think about the weapon, the weapon will summoned at his hand, he decided that he does not want his weapon, it will disappear.

Does your DM ask for a lot of ability checks? Do the players themselves ask to make ability checks?

I cant answer that , I am new to DnD but the whole system that he is managing the game and skill/ability checks is really realistic, fun and challenging.

 

[jayoungr]

He did this because it is not fair at low levels, a player with high ability scores can be successfull on everything he/she wanna try.

I haven't found that to be the case in the 5E games I've run.

If you're using the standard array, the best bonus you can get on anything at first level is +5, meaning that you need to roll 10 or better to make a DC 15 check. And you won't be able to get +5 on very many skills, because you need to both be trained in the skill and have a 16 in the corresponding ability.

If you're rolling randomly, the best bonus you can get should be +7, if I've calculated correctly (rolled an 18, +2 from racial bonus = stat of 20 so +5 modifier, with an extra +2 for proficiency). And if you rolled that amazingly well, you should be acing skill checks. The chance of doing that is kind of the point of rolling, isn't it? (But you still have to roll an 8 to succeed; it's not like you can't miss unless you roll a 1.)

If the DM really, really thinks this is a problem, then there must be other ways of handling it. Either set the DCs higher, or maybe make players roll with disadvantage for skills they're not trained in. The second option might be rather extreme, but I think it's less extreme than the DM's current solution.

 

[akr71]

He did this because it is not fair at low levels, a player with high ability scores can be successfull on everything he/she wanna try.
But I dont get why it has to meddling with Bard JoAT to vanish the feature ? As I said I even asked him to let JoAT to fill the half the new gap of being trained and not being trained in skills. He declined it, he said " I have a different idea about this matter unfortunately"

May I ask what would you do if your house-rule makes a player unhappy or sad cuz its almost vanishing his class feature? Like in this case, or any other house rules. What would you do if a player or some of them have objections over your rule because if you had applied it before you start the game they would have changed their class/race/background

#1 a player with all round high ability scores should be successful at nearly everything... if I think back 20 years ago, there was a couple kids in my graduating class that where on the Honor Roll, good at science, math and languages, made whatever sports team they felt like trying for and was so damned charismatic everyone liked him. Was I jealous? Of course, but he was still a good guy and I didn't hold it against him.

#2 What would I do if my house rule made a player unhappy - have an open and honest discussion about it. What about the rule does he/she not like? How would they make the rule?

More importantly, I discuss the idea of a house rule beforehand. "Hey guys, I don't like the way x is handled in the rules. I was thinking y - what do you think?" At which point they usually say "ya sure, let's try that for a session or two and if we don't like it we can go back to x or try and iron it out."

I look at it as its their game, I'm the referee. If the players are not having fun, I'm doing something wrong (or they have unreal expectations).

 

[iserith]

He did this because it is not fair at low levels, a player with high ability scores can be successfull on everything he/she wanna try.

This is not actually true. The DM decides whether anything a player describes his or her character as trying to do succeeds, fails, or has an uncertain outcome. So:

If you try to do a thing that the DM thinks can't work, then it doesn't work - no roll.

If you try to do a thing that the DM thinks definitely works, then it does work - no roll.

If you try to do a thing and the DM isn't sure if it works or not, then he or she asks for the player to make an ability check.

Therefore, changing the rules for the reasons you described doesn't make much sense unless the DM is calling for an ability check for practically everything the players describe their characters as wanting to do. If the DM brings his thinking in line with the "Middle Path" as described by the DMG - pages 236-237 - then he or she will probably see that the house rule makes very little sense.

 

[Inoeex]

This is not actually true. The DM decides whether anything a player describes his or her character as trying to do succeeds, fails, or has an uncertain outcome. So:

If you try to do a thing that the DM thinks can't work, then it doesn't work - no roll.

If you try to do a thing that the DM thinks definitely works, then it does work - no roll.

If you try to do a thing and the DM isn't sure if it works or not, then he or she asks for the player to make an ability check.

Therefore, changing the rules for the reasons you described doesn't make much sense unless the DM is calling for an ability check for practically everything the players describe their characters as wanting to do. If the DM brings his thinking in line with the "Middle Path" as described by the DMG - pages 236-237 - then he or she will probably see that the house rule makes very little sense.

I just told him that I dont wanna play it anymore, told him that is his world and his rules, I dont like them thus leave. Before that he said gave me his negative answer.
And this time he said he really did change JoAT and Proficiency Bonuses, but that none of my buisness to know that.
I told him that I have the rights to know the changes thats affecting my class, like I had the right to read about the version in the book, he said its non of players business to know : |