Advantage for Class/Character Specific Skills

[MadGrady]

So now that all skills can be attempted untrained, including knowledge skills, I was wondering about houseruling an advantage/disadvantage system for those skills that really you should know, or shouldn't know.

For instance - a Wizard trying to recall a piece of arcane lore and who has proficiency in the Arcana skill, would roll with advantage.

Sure the fighter can attempt the skill, but since it is not really a "class" skill he rolls with disadvantage. If he can convince me of the reason he might know the answer due to character reasons, he gets to roll normally.

Thoughts? Anyone use a system like this to help those characters who specialize get a little extra bump?

I'm thinking this is primarily going to center around the knowledge skills.

[Demonic Spoon]

First, advantage is a poor way to do it - adding blanket advantage means that you can no longer use advantage/disadvantage as a useful ad-hoc tool.


That said, if a class lets you specialize in a skill, it gives you a feature that boosts that skill. Putting aside the fact that characters can know things that aren't intrinsically related to their class, you're penalizing people from taking "nonstandard" backgrounds. Why shouldn't a fighter be able to take the sage background?


If you think that wizards should be great at making arcana checks, swap one of their smaller features out for expertise in it - done.

If you are worried about 8-int half-orc barbarians succeeding knowledge(arcana) checks about obscure arcane lore, don't let them roll. My preferred solution for knowledge skills is to simply work under the assumption that the DC is not the same for everyone.

[Slipperychicken]

This is literally what proficiency is for. It already serves to distinguish people who are good at skills from people who aren't

Also, you don't need additional penalties for nonproficiency. A nonproficient character with an intelligence penalty cannot possibly succeed on a "Hard" (DC 20) knowledge check. Even with a natural 20, the best he can hope for is a 19.

If it were up to me, I'd just use "passive" scores; if the character's skill+10 equals or exceeds the DC, then he just knows, no rolls required.

[MadGrady]

My preferred solution for knowledge skills is to simply work under the assumption that the DC is not the same for everyone.

I.....I actually never thought of that option. I like this much better.

As always, input is greatly appreciated.

[Lolzyking]

you could houserule that those unproficient in the skill, if they lack proficiency in the stat the skill is based on, take negative proficiency to the skill.

[Ninja_Prawn]

This is literally what proficiency is for. It already serves to distinguish people who are good at skills from people who aren't

Also, you don't need additional penalties for nonproficiency. A nonproficient character with an intelligence penalty cannot possibly succeed on a "Hard" (DC 20) knowledge check. Even with a natural 20, the best he can hope for is a 19.

If it were up to me, I'd just use "passive" scores; if the character's skill+10 equals or exceeds the DC, then he just knows, no rolls required.

This gets my vote. If you want more granularity in skills, let players get half proficiency (maybe through 'crash course' training) or let them gain expertise as a feat.

If all wizards in your setting are experts in the arcane, make it a compulsory pick (and/or a prerequisite to multiclassing). That won't break the game.

And yes, if a task would he harder for one specific character (reaching to the top shelf if you're a halfling?), then raise the DC. Easy.

[Eisenheim]

I'm gonna disagree and say I think it's a great idea to let narrative considerations drive advantage and disadvantage on skill checks. I wouldn't bother with a standardized system, but as DM, you should totally give advantage and disadvantage based on what it makes sense for characters to be good and bad at. Just talk with your table first to make sure everyone's okay with it, but I think it's a great idea.

[Demonic Spoon]

I'm gonna disagree and say I think it's a great idea to let narrative considerations drive advantage and disadvantage on skill checks. I wouldn't bother with a standardized system, but as DM, you should totally give advantage and disadvantage based on what it makes sense for characters to be good and bad at. Just talk with your table first to make sure everyone's okay with it, but I think it's a great idea.

I think the problem is that his ideas of what should drive advantage and disadvantage in the OP weren't appropriate. It seems silly and needlessly restrictive to say that there's no way a Fighter could know anything about magic, and serves no actual purpose other than to drive the game towards stereotypical characters.

[Gurka]

you could houserule that those unproficient in the skill, if they lack proficiency in the stat the skill is based on, take negative proficiency to the skill.

So that the more experienced a character is, and the better they are at things in general... the WORSE they are at the things they haven't studied? Worse at them than they were when they didn't know much about anything?

seems counter intuitive to me.

Honestly, I think it's pretty much fine as is. Just because you can, in general, attempt skill checks untrained, doesn't mean that you can ALWAYS do so. I can attempt to break into a locked car untrained with moderate chance at success (depeding on the vehicle... and I mean without breaking a window). I can not, however, hope to succeed at calculating orbital trajectories without the appropriate mathematical background.

[LordVonDerp]

Try expertise instead.

[Lolzyking]

the more you dedicate yourself to one skill set, the harder it becomes to learn and do other things

old dog new tricks fallacy

basically the more proficient you are in arcana and history, means less time you've spent reading about animal handling, or stretching and practicing acrobatics, or working out to maintain your athletic build.

[Gurka]

Yet I find it hard to believe that an experienced adventurer who frequently interacts with magical creatures and objects yet does not have Arcana, not only knows less about magical doodads than a country bumpkin who's never seen a gold coin, let alone a magic sword, but also knows actively LESS about these things than they did before they encountered any of them.

Overspecialization is a thing, but its certainly not universal, and probably (in my mind anyway) a bad place to assume all characters end up. Particularly given that the entire premise here is that there are semi-frequent attempts at untrained skills happening here, which basically precludes overspecialization. It's not being great at one thing that makes you bad at the rest, it's neglecting the use and exercise of those secondary and tertiary skills that makes you worse at them. If they're getting used, even without formal training, then they're not exactly being neglected.

I've never been great at playing Pool. I get better the more I do it, and worse the less often I play. I would not consider myself proficient in the way I am in my profession, so no proficiency bonus, yet I can still attempt it without penalty... just without hope of being as good as somebody who plays it competitively.

[djreynolds]

I had the same debate as fighter. My character is gonna level to 4th. Does he take shield master or an ability increase in dexterity to acquire expertise in athletics? My point is if you want to be good at a skill all the time, it might be worth it. But the skill in question worth dipping to pick up expertise in it. If it's situational, I'd say know. Athletics in combat with shield master and expertise to me is worth the dip, 20th level is to far away to wait for a 4th attack.

For a wizard, a dip for armor may be worth it to focus on intelligence stat increases and constitution and forget about dexterity increases.

But spells are your skill, leave the lore to bards or use the help action and have that no-good rogue and unappreciative fighter start reading.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Try expertise instead.

I really wish expertise was part of the base skill system and not a rogue/bard/cleric feature.

[GiantOctopodes]

Since Expertise has been mentioned, I will point out that advantage or disadvantage is effectively a +4 (at minimum) in its effect. Regularly, 11 is the average. With advantage, there is a 75% chance of rolling at Least 11, with disadvantage, there is a 75% chance of rolling at Most 11. The chance of a natural 20 is 5% normally, double that with advantage, and a nearly impossible .25% with disadvantage (1/400). The chance of a natural 1 is the same, but reversed.

My point being, Advantage and Disadvantage are Powerful things, much more so than just a static +3, for example, which means that it is at least equal to expertise on a 12th level character. It should be, imho, saved to reflect the situation, not given capriciously to all characters, it will have a far greater impact than you might think. There is a reason why auto advantage basically never exists.

[LordVonDerp]

I really wish expertise was part of the base skill system and not a rogue/bard/cleric feature.

Then make it one. Give each class free expertise in one or two skills.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Then make it one. Give each class free expertise in one or two skills.

Sadly it steps onto features of the Rogue/Bard to much. If you did this then you need to give them something else.

It just snowballs you know.

[Steampunkette]

Give each class you think needs to have a skill pretty powerful automatic proficiency in the skill with the option to expend a skill pick for proficiency.

This includes Rogues at level 1.

Rogues then get expertise on skills of their choice with the Expertise feature and makes them that much better.

I think it'd be fine. Wizards/Sorcs/Warlocks Arcana. Clerics/Paladins get Religion. Druids get Nature. Bards with Performance or Persuasion. And give Rogues Sleight of Hand. Fighters with Athletics. And Barbarians/Rangers can have Survival.

[LordVonDerp]

Sadly it steps onto features of the Rogue/Bard to much. If you did this then you need to give them something else.

It just snowballs you know.

Easy. Give them some free expertise as well. Problem solved.

[djreynolds]

You can multiclass. That's fair, otherwise that skill isn't that important. Expertise is double proficiency. One level of rouge, or knowledge cleric with scale armor. Not a bad dip. Fair. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. Just kidding. The only guy outclassing a wizard with arcana is maybe a more bard. No cleric or rogue roled with the adventure league rules is gonna have a maxed out intelligence. But you can ask for help