D&D 5E (2024) There is sauerkraut in my lederhosen: Snarf's Guide to Using (and adjudicating) Skills in 5e

[KYRON45]

I didn't read this, but it has "skills" in the headline. Skill checks are the worst.
But Snarf....Snarf is the best.
There should be "Snarf Checks".

Player: I want to do this thing....rolls...fails
Player: SNARF CHECK!!!
DM: Son of a......

I'm still working on the details.

 

[Maxperson]

You can make the check without the book

Then what's the point of the tool and tool proficiency?

 

[Parmandur]

I'll chime in as another DM who has degrees of success. I also started using success with a cost for narrow failed rolls, though I do like @Parmandur's d6 idea. I'm going to have to think about that one for a while.

What I don't do, is just have success with the roll determining cost, coolness, etc. I think failure should be a possibility.

Just to be transparent, I didn't come up with it: it's from the new Stormlight Archives RPG, but frankly I think you can airdrop it into 5E pretty easily.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I didn't read this, but it has "skills" in the headline. Skill checks are the worst.
But Snarf....Snarf is the best.
There should be "Snarf Checks".

Player: I want to do this thing....rolls...fails
Player: SNARF CHECK!!!
DM: Son of a......

I'm still working on the details.

....I recommend starting with "Everyone at the table does a shot."

 

[Parmandur]

....I recommend starting with "Everyone at the table does a shot."

Always.

 

[Minigiant]

Then what's the point of the tool and tool proficiency?

How I do it is you add your proficiency modifier if you have proficiency and have Advantage if you have an associated book.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's one example, but the idea should be clear- skills, especially the non-game skills, should not be considered as some stand-alone ability, but should be considered in the context of the character and the world, and players should be consistently rewarded for playing their characters as characters- which means leveraging what makes them different, unique, and fun.

One of the things I've become convinced of is that we don't need a list of 18 unique skills. D&D 2014 had something called "background proficiency" as an optional rule, very reminiscent of AD&D's Secondary Skills. This is enough. One thing, beyond my class, that I can say "I'm good at this," and if I think something makes sense for me to add my proficiency bonus to, I can make an argument.

If we took all the "non-game skills" out and rolled them into background proficiency/a secondary skill, we could be left with just like 5-7 skills that might be worth keeping around. And even those, I'd wager, could use some alternate subsystems instead of the skills system.