D&D 5E Using different skills in 5e

[Catolias]

I don’t agree that the 5e skills are fine. The issue with 5e skills are that they are built like a secondary mechanic in the game. This sits uneasily with me given that in any game skills are central for 2 out of 3 key components in any D&D game - exploration and interaction. Indeed, skills and are central to realising the third component of combat insofar as determining if it’ll happen at all.

Players in 5e only directly influence skills at two points. This is at character creation and then at 3rd level when there is a further selection on a particular character. After that, there is no active involvement in changing skills. This sort of suggests that characters beyond 3 do not learn or grow unless they multi class. This is one of the most disappointing parts of 5e for me. It just does not ring true that characters don’t learn and improve - and something PF2e addresses with TEML bonus modifiers so +1 to GlassJaws fix.

Sure, characters can enhance skills by way of ability improvements. However, skills are disproportionately focussed on Dex, Wis and Chr. So it is fair to say that anyone seeking to enhance their character’s skills will be looking to these first. This is especially given the heavy lifting that Wis and especially Dex have in D&D. PF2e seems to try and shift more into Int.

I don’t agree that the skills provide the right granularity. This is both in 5e or PF2e. There is some real dissonance when reflecting on the modifiers being attributed to particular skills. Athletics is an obvious one. While strength might be accurate for a quick sprint or a jump from one ledge to another, it is not the modifier useful for determining skill checks for rock climbing (less strength and more the fine motor skills required to find the hand holds) or swimming (once you have the technique from training, it is more about constitutional endurance than dexterity or strength).

 

[DND_Reborn]

{snip}

I don’t agree that the skills provide the right granularity. This is both in 5e or PF2e. There is some real dissonance when reflecting on the modifiers being attributed to particular skills. Athletics is an obvious one. While strength might be accurate for a quick sprint or a jump from one ledge to another, it is not the modifier useful for determining skill checks for rock climbing (less strength and more the fine motor skills required to find the hand holds) or swimming (once you have the technique from training, it is more about constitutional endurance than dexterity or strength).

This is precisely why if you use different combinations of ability score and skills, you don't have issues IMO. Ruling that rock climbing would be Dexterity (Athletics) instead of Strength (Athletics) is fine if that is how your table and DM think its best.

As for swimming, it depends on what type of swimming and under what conditions. Strength could be most appropriate, so could Constitution in a different scenario.

If I have two major gripes with skills, one is the default ability score linked to skills. The second is linking skill to proficiency. I prefer skill ranks and that if you put ranks into a skill later on, you are not by default just as skilled with your new skill as something you have used all your life.

 

[Catolias]

I’m cool with using different modifiers and will alternate them from time to time.

If I have two major gripes with skills, one is the default ability score linked to skills. The second is linking skill to proficiency. I prefer skill ranks and that if you put ranks into a skill later on, you are not by default just as skilled with your new skill as something you have used all your life.

Agreed. The fear of complexity meant discarding 3.xe and PF1e clever mechanic of modifiers influencing but not determining skills. Without ranks and if D&D modifiers applied to the real world, that means Laksha Talakhadze who lifted 258kg in the 2016 Rio Olympics should have also won the 100m sprint - maybe he rolled a 1 in his heat

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

To add granularity, you always have the possibility of using the tool proficiency rules from the PHB and the optional rule on granting advantage and a bonus when using a skill you're proficient with in combination with a tool proficiency. I think the "tool proficiency" rule is very under-used (as a DM I often fail to provide opportunity for the player to make them shine as well). Nothing says the tools list in the PHB is exhaustive, they are simply tools of any trade (and probably meant to replace the Professions skills).

If you want to encourage your PCs to learn proficiency in tools, I'd suggest lifting the 250 days of downtime training (PHB p. 187) and assorted 250 gp to allow players to acquire a few during your campaign if you don't include extended downtime between adventures.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Good analysis BB.

To play devil's advocate slightly (although I'm not countering your post), having a list of "skills" allows for the skill system to exist, if that makes any sense. You could separate skills from abilities and consolidate, but you then lose granularity of the system. If you want to preserve the depth of choice of the current skill system, I don't think it can withstand attrition.

I would absolutely agree that removing skills isn't necessarily an improvement, either. Honestly, my original post had to be abbreviated because I'm travelling, but it was a point that I wanted to make.

That said, I don't think the 5e skill system has appreciable depth, nor do I think it couldn't withstand some attrition. I would like to see more skills, but I'm not really interested in more skills just to have more skills.

If anything, I think 5E suffers from lack of skill choice more than too much. For example, Stealth and Perception are close to must-haves. However, I think that has more to do with the frequency that certain skills are used by other systems than the skill system itself. That's especially true in the case of Perception.

I think the core problem is that each attribute has one skill that seems like "use this attribute to do what this attribute does." Strength has only one skill, Dex is Stealth, Con is Napoleon Dynamite, Int is Arcana, Wis is Perception, and Cha is Persuasion. Then only a few attributes have a secondary skills. Dex has Acrobatics, Int has Investigation, Wis has Survival or Insight (depending on the campaign, IMX), Cha has Deception. Everything else is not really useful.

Tool proficiencies are nice to flesh out skills and provide creative uses but tend to be underused in my experience.

Agreed. I think that partially has to do with the fact that tools are poorly defined. Like if I'm using Smith's tools to forge something, is that a Strength check? Int?

My "fixes" to the skill system would be twofold:

1. Provide more examples of uses within each skill. XGtE did this would tools and it's a great springboard for coming with new tool uses. 4E did a good job of this for skills, although like most things in 4E, went too far and provided so much detail such that it became confining rather than broadening.

Agreed again on both counts. Too many examples easily looks like a comprehensive list of skill modes, especially in an edition with strictly defined features and powers.

2. Expand the modifier scale. Currently a character can be untrained, trained (proficiency), or have Expertise (double proficiency) in a skill. This doesn't allow for much variety across different characters. PF2E has made some interesting innovations in this space.

Personally, I think Expertise should either be a flat +2 or +3. Anything more than that, and dice rolling becomes irrelevant for most DCs. The game should never ask for die rolls when failure is impossible. It's a waste of table time and it should not be a built-in mechanic. Being so good that you can't fail also means you're not challenged. You should not reward XP for that. No challenge means no reward.

 

[GlassJaw]

Personally, I think Expertise should either be a flat +2 or +3. Anything more than that, and dice rolling becomes irrelevant for most DCs.

Totally agree. Good design advice in general.

I've been looking at PF2E a bit and I was shocked when I saw proficiency bonuses. They have 5 levels of proficiency that add bonuses of +0, +2, +4, +6, and +8. So far, so good. But the kicker is once you become trained, you also add your level! Also looks like your ability scores increase faster. So much for bounded accuracy.

That means your level and ability modifier will quickly outweigh your proficiency bonus by a large margin. I would do the complete opposite and make training count for more. Anyway, this is just one example of modifiers that make the d20 roll less important.

With 5E's bounded accuracy, it's more resilient to modifier scaling. In fact, if you make +6 the highest modifier (which is what Expertise would grant you at level 17), you are placing more value on the die roll and ability score modifier. All depends on the DC range and success rate you are going for.

I might experiment with a scale like this:

Untrained: +0
Trained: +Proficiency
Skilled: +Proficiency +2
Expert: +Proficiency +4
Master: +Proficiency +6

You could expand this by adding a mechanic for auto-success depending on the proficiency level. Could be dependent on the (so DM discretion) or "hard-coded" based on DC. For example, if you are an Expert, you automatically succeed on checks of DC 10 or less. Could also be word such that you roll is never considered less than 10. So you essentially get a "passive" score in that skill. Just an idea.

This couldn't be done in a vacuum of course. Some races and classes would need to be tweaked and there would need to be a mechanism for introducing these new levels. I do like that PF2E has additional avenues for customization but holy smokes, the PF2E Core book reads like legalese.

My gut says there happy medium to be found with 5E's core mechanics and scaling but with some of the systems broken up to be more granular and providing more choice.