D&D 5E When will WotC support unlinking abilities and skills?

[5ekyu]

Of course they could have. Just like they could have done with every other optional or variant rule. But in general they tended to give as core the simpler option, easier for brand new GM and players out of the box and list the tad more complex variants with examples.

Seems to have worked out well.

Or they could have just made it the default (supporting it) instead of a variant (as an aside for making logical ability-skill connections). It isn't really a difficult concept to grasp and in products they could list the linked combinations they felt most applicable or appropriate to the task or feature or whatever.

 

[Remathilis]

Tying Knots (Xanathar's) is a Intelligence (Sleight of hand) check.

Several checks for sea hazards in Ghosts of Saltmarsh call for Intelligence (Medicine) and Wisdom (Nature). Those skills and abilities are usually reversed.

They do use alternate skill/ability combos, just sparingly.

 

[jayoungr]

As already noted, it's supported in the PHB, p. 175, "Variant: Skills with Different Abilities."

It's also appeared in some adventures--notably, in the season 4 AL adventure "The Marionette," PCs need to make CON checks with various skills to interact with their environment while in a dream-projection.

Maybe it doesn't happen often enough in published material to suit your taste, but it's not fair to say WotC doesn't support it.

 

[Hriston]

I like the current presentation where skills are presented as aspects of certain abilities. It’s simple and integrated.

 

[Maestrino]

TL;DR version: This idea is already supported by WotC. However, published material defaults to a "most-frequently-used" distribution that makes it easier for new players to grasp how the system works. Power users are encouraged to do whatever the heck they want.

 

[DND_Reborn]

To those who mention published WotC works, not everyone owns it all so IME (since I don't own a copy of Saltmarsh or follw AL adventures) I haven't seen it. You say they do support it, I believe you in that to a point maybe they do, but as I expressed in the OP it simply would have been better to use the variant from the get-go. You don't agree, great, totally your choice, but I am done debating what is completely a matter of preference and opinion.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For the UA Paladin feature, Peerless Athlete, why not just make it advantage on all Athletics and Acrobatics checks? I know if we use it, we will.

I suspect continuing to invoke STAT(Skill) checks that way is for (1) consistency, and (2) to emphasize that skills are just proficiencies that add to ability checks, not anything special in themselves.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Using different abilities for the same skill is an optinal rule in the DMG.

It's a variant rule in the PHB, in chapter 7.

It mentions Constitution (Athletics) and Strength (Itimidation).

 

[Xenonnonex]

It's a variant rule in the PHB, in chapter 7.

It mentions Constitution (Athletics) and Strength (Itimidation).

That is even better. This is enabling players.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I expressed in the OP it simply would have been better to use the variant from the get-go.

Not really. No. The variant should remain a variant. It is up to the DM and players to make a case for using other ability scores for skills. Wizards should continue to design for the great majority.

What might sense to you might not make sense to everyone else. Hence why the use of the most common applicable ability score for the most applicable skill.
For example I see sprinting as also Strength or Constitution based. If Wizards proceeds to have something like that in the books someone is going to be unhappy. Better to have general applicable skills in the main and use the variants off the cuff.