D&D 5E When is it OK to let a player substitute one skill for another?

[Don Durito]

Haha I don’t have an NDA - all this stuff is publicly available in the playtest packets, though they are a bit tricky to find these days.

Fundamentally, skills worked the same way they do now throughout the playtest. That is to say, if you had proficiency in a skill, you could add a bonus to ability checks to resolve actions to which that skill might be beneficial. The specific bonus changed from draft to draft. They started out as a flat +3, later changed to proficiency die (which still exists as a variant rule in the 5e DMG), and finally to the proficiency bonus as we see it in 5e. At first though, there was no list. You just got a number of skills and you could pick whatever you wanted. Want a bonus on checks to run, climb, and jump? Use one of your proficiencies on “Athletics.” Want a bonus on checks to weave baskets underwater? Use one of your proficiencies on “underwater basket weaving.” With no fixed list, you could be proficient in anything you could describe in a few words.

Of course, players wanted a list they could pick from, so we got a list pretty quickly. And the exact form of the list changed a few times as WotC tried to find the degree of specificity that satisfied the greatest number of players. But you can see vestiges of the no skill list approach in other optional skill variants in the DMG. Background proficiency is probably the closest of these to how it worked without the list, and though I’ve yet to run a campaign with it, I find it a pretty appealing variant rule.

This seems to somewhat confirm my thinking that the skill system in Numenera reflects the originally design intentions behind DNDnext.

It would be a better game if they'd kept it. The playtesters are not always right.

 

[Rune]

This seems to somewhat confirm my thinking that the skill system in Numenera reflects the originally design intentions behind DNDnext.

It would be a better game if they'd kept it. The playtesters are not always right.

Considering the public playtest was really more of an extended test-marketing phase, I’d say they got exactly the D&D they were aiming for.

 

[Charlaquin]

Considering the public playtest was really more of an extended test-marketing phase, I’d say they got exactly the D&D they were aiming for.

Well, they didn’t get the D&D Monte Cook was aiming for, and he left the project. Though, my understanding is that him leaving had more to do with the corporate culture at WotC rather than anything about the direction of the game design. But, I do agree with Don Dorito that the game could have been a better game than it is if WotC had stood behind some of their design decisions that got ruled out by the poll results.

And don’t get me wrong, I like 5e. But I can’t help but see the places it could have been better. Especially when it was better in some of those places during playtesting.

 

[MGibster]

After reading this thread, I'm rather amiable towards the idea of getting rid of skills proficiency altogether. Adventurers travel far and wide and are exposed to different cultures, stories, and have a broad range of experiences. Olaf the barbarian might not be as adept as Goren the wizard at remembering ancient cultures, but why not let them both make History rolls with the appropriate modifier based on their attribute? Just off hand, the only draw back I can see is that maybe the rogue and bard are suddenly not the only ones good at slight of hand or sneaking.

 

[Don Durito]

After reading this thread, I'm rather amiable towards the idea of getting rid of skills proficiency altogether. Adventurers travel far and wide and are exposed to different cultures, stories, and have a broad range of experiences. Olaf the barbarian might not be as adept as Goren the wizard at remembering ancient cultures, but why not let them both make History rolls with the appropriate modifier based on their attribute? Just off hand, the only draw back I can see is that maybe the rogue and bard are suddenly not the only ones good at slight of hand or sneaking.

I'm not sure it matters in terms of sneaking. In the caste of Sleight of Hand you could make it something only certain characters can attempt (Either rogues only, or if you're keeping backgrounds, characters with appropriate backgrounds.)

After all there's only a small percentage of people in the real world who could even really attempt to pull off something with sleight of hand.

The variants in the DMG basically reflect how other games handle things. Castle and Crusades is an almost retroclone built on on the 3e chassis which has a Primes system very similar to the ability score variant, while Shadow of a Demon Lord and 13th Age both use a system similar to the background proficiency variant.

A lot depends on what you want? I can see different results depending on whether the desire is to double down and protect class niches, or to have things wide open.

 

[Charlaquin]

After reading this thread, I'm rather amiable towards the idea of getting rid of skills proficiency altogether. Adventurers travel far and wide and are exposed to different cultures, stories, and have a broad range of experiences. Olaf the barbarian might not be as adept as Goren the wizard at remembering ancient cultures, but why not let them both make History rolls with the appropriate modifier based on their attribute?

I mean... They can. It’s an Intelligence check. History proficiency is just a bonus you can add to the check if they have it.

That said, I think you would like the Background Proficiency variant rule. Instead of having skills, you’re proficient in your background. A Sailor is proficient in all the things a Sailor would be good at. A Spy is proficient in all the things a Spy would be good at. etc. Whenever the DM calls for an ability check, if you feel your background training would be helpful in accomplishing the task, you can ask to add your Proficiency Bonus. “As an Outlander, I heard all kinds of stories about ancient peoples from my tribe’s elders. Could I add my Proficiency bonus for that?”

 

[Don Durito]

I mean... They can. It’s an Intelligence check. History proficiency is just a bonus you can add to the check if they have it.

That said, I think you would like the Background Proficiency variant rule. Instead of having skills, you’re proficient in your background. A Sailor is proficient in all the things a Sailor would be good at. A Spy is proficient in all the things a Spy would be good at. etc. Whenever the DM calls for an ability check, if you feel your background training would be helpful in accomplishing the task, you can ask to add your Proficiency Bonus. “As an Outlander, I heard all kinds of stories about ancient peoples. Could I add my Proficiency bonus for that?”

If I used that system I'd basically use two backgrounds.

I'd personally probably insist on a background that reflects your class in some way and leave the other wide open, but mileage may vary there.

 

[clearstream]

After reading this thread, I'm rather amiable towards the idea of getting rid of skills proficiency altogether. Adventurers travel far and wide and are exposed to different cultures, stories, and have a broad range of experiences. Olaf the barbarian might not be as adept as Goren the wizard at remembering ancient cultures, but why not let them both make History rolls with the appropriate modifier based on their attribute? Just off hand, the only draw back I can see is that maybe the rogue and bard are suddenly not the only ones good at slight of hand or sneaking.

I like skills. I really don't want a game where the only crunch is for fighting.

I was part of the playtest and sentiment for skills was strong. I find the current mechanics function better than I expected

 

[Oofta]

You look like you’re actively trying to make it sound like more of a hassle than it is. You don’t have to say “strength check with athletics proficiency modifier if you happen to have one,” you can just say “strength plus Athletics check,” or even just “strength check.”

It's just a personal preference, what I disagree with is the tone that if people don't say it a certain way they're "doing it wrong". Besides, a strength check (to me) means that no proficiency could apply. Well, that and in the US we're incredibly lazy. Like how I just said "US" instead of "United Stated of America" or even "USA" and people will abbreviate just about anyone's name down to one syllable. Because two syllables for someone's name is just way too much work.

But I still thing the "strength plus" is just superfluous for a lot of people when the default is strength. It also seems to be telling people that they can't use any other ability score. So if I say "charisma plus intimidate check" as a DM I've just told them they can't substitute strength (or any other appropriate ability) for charisma. I'm not saying asking for a specific proficiency check is great either, just that the less specific while indicating you can use a proficiency is my preference.

I also don't think it's that big of a deal, and these discussions amplify what (to me) is a really minor aspect of the game. People don't need to run the game exactly the same.

 

[Stoutstien]

There wasn't a fixed skill list in the earliest drafts of the playtest. Players demanded a skill list, though.

What happens when they listen to players who really don't know what they want