Using skills in combat?

[djreynolds]

I have been thinking of allowing skills in combat. My players are unhappy with the "situational" use of skills.

I proposed that sleight if hand, deception, and performance and perhaps even intimidation could be used to at least grant advantage, not in rolling, in combat.

They may be too powerful though, that's my concern.

So lets say a thief with fast hands wants to dazzle an opponent with sleight of hand. If he beat the opponent's perception check could I allow him advantage and thus land his sneak attack, if he still has to hit. Not advantage on the roll.

But how to allow this in combat. Do I say, you may use deception but it will cost you your attack action and next round you can get this? Where do I put this into the combat round? Do I allow it freely, it could be abused. But a fighter with a perform skill spinning his glaive could be distracting or intimidating? Or nothing if the enemy passes his wisdom check?

So if no, that's fine.

But if yes, where in combat and what is the appropriate cost?

[hymer]

I'm not sure I quite understand the players' gripe. Do they want skills to have an effect in combat, or do they simply want skill use to have predictable effects? The latter can be achieved by just not letting skills do anything in combat beyond what they already do, such as let you climb or balance on a precipice.

If it's the former: Compare with the Truestrike cantrip and the Help action - an action for advantage on the next roll. That works pretty well, although it is somewhat underwhelming in groups of similarly powerful individuals.

Edit: Here's one you could try out. When someone says 'I want to use [skill] now', you simply ask 'What does it do?'. Let them come up with the mechanics. No comments from you. Then at the end of the session, evaluate.

[djreynolds]

I'm not sure I quite understand the players' gripe. Do they want skills to have an effect in combat, or do they simply want skill use to have predictable effects? The latter can be achieved by just not letting skills do anything in combat beyond what they already do, such as let you climb or balance on a precipice.

If it's the former: Compare with the Truestrike cantrip and the Help action - an action for advantage on the next roll. That works pretty well, although it is somewhat underwhelming in groups of similarly powerful individuals.

That's good advice. I think its using skills to have predictable outcomes. They want to use skills the way athletic and acrobatics can be used, either for shoving or defense of grappling. I like the idea of using deception, or performance to sway combat in one direction, and I told them the enemy will just get smarter as well.

But I like the idea of action for advantage on the next roll. And they my lose the roll as you said. Many of the enemy you face will have high perception checks.

[Doof]

You can already use Help action in combat to grant advantage to an ally in combat, but only against a creature within 5 ft of you.


HELP

You can lend your aid to another creature in the completion of a task. When you take the Help action, the creature you aid gains advantage on the next ability check it makes to perform the task you are helping with, provided that it makes the check before the start of your next turn.

Alternatively, you can aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally’s attack more effective. If your ally attacks the target before your next turn, the first attack roll is made with advantage.
emphasis mine

So the question becomes, is it fair/balanced to allow someone to give the advantage to themselves, in exchange for needing to roll a skill check? I'm leaning toward a yes myself.

It will, as always, take an action slot.

[djreynolds]

So they're using the help action to help themselves? I just don't want to give an inch and they take a mile

[djreynolds]

I do find it cool what my guy wants. Him spinning his halberd is intimidating and perhaps hypnotic or at least distracting and it pits skills like insight and perception and will saves vs skills like sleight of hand, deception etc.

It says fast hands allows you to use sleight of hand, but besides healer's kits and potions and caltrops, to use this to feint in combat. That's cool.

But I don't want to waste every round doing it, but I don't want people pouting either. I like the idea of using it like the help action where it costs you something big like your attack action, like Help does in combat. That's cool and it use the rules as the exist.

[DragonLordIT]

I would do something like:
-Feinting: use your bonus action to make deception vs insight of the opponent, if you do the trick your next attack has advantage; you opponent gains advantage to the roll if it is the second or more time you use this action in the same combat

I don't think it would be unbalanced, works only for you, uses your bonus action and affects only 1 attack among all those you can do . .. it is not like having someone that aids you but noone uses an action to have ad advantage.

[djreynolds]

I like it, very cool and it comes back around. Like a pitcher/ batter duel. You both "know" what the other guy is thinking

[pibby]

You can probably get a lot of ideas from Rule Of Cool's Legend. I'm on phone atm but it's the first result on Google. Their skill system has different skills and resembles more of dnd 3.5 (like using acrobatics to move through an enemy's AoO range safely) and also assumes that your players will be able to eventually perform what I would call "feats of anime BS" but it has a lot of neat ideas that you could use at your table if everyone is cool with them.

[djreynolds]

I will check this out. Sounds cool

[Fast Jimmy]

Costing an action is WAY too expensive in terms of action economy.

Example - would a lvl 5 fighter ever, in nearly any situation, sacrifice his Attack Action which grants him two attacks (and possibly a third using a bonus action with an off-hand/Feat granted attack) to gain Advantage on ONE hit against an enemy next turn?

You DO realize what Advantage is, right? Allowing the player to take the best of two rolls? If they player has Extra Attack (as nearly half of the PHB classes do in some shape or form), they already can make two rolls against an enemy with their Action. Except they have the chance of hitting with both of those attacks, doubling their damage output.

Using an Action to use a Skill means sacrificing four attacks to make two attacks, only one with Advantage (which confers no bonus damage other than being more likely to hit). And it involves passing a DC check which the player may fail, meaning they will possibly have COMPLETELY wasted their turn.



What player would want to do that? Just say "skills do nothing in combat" and leave it at that if you are so scared of unbalancing things. Otherwise you are just building a terrible scenario for your players where you are severely penalizing their roll playing for trying to incorporate role playing.

[djreynolds]

It doesn't have to cost anything. Its just adding a layer player's have voiced. It could be a bonus action, or even something done during movement.

I'm not sold on the idea either. But the skills are there. Perhaps it could simulate the martial adept feat, like goading or menacing where it is in addition to the attack. Or they could just take this a rename the maneuvers something else. Perhaps a skill superiority dice that could be used but just acts like the battle maneuvers.

[hymer]

It could be a bonus action, or even something done during movement.

This could easily turn these houserules into a straight-up increase in power. The idea with these specials costing an action is that they give you additional options, but not ones that are likely to eclipse your existing abilities. Skills scale very little from 1-20 (perhaps as little as +4 at 20 compared to 1), whereas the power of what PCs can do with their actions explodes (a fighter having one +6 attack at lvl 1, but four at +11 at lvl 20 - at the very least).

[djreynolds]

This could easily turn these houserules into a straight-up increase in power. The idea with these specials costing an action is that they give you additional options, but not ones that are likely to eclipse your existing abilities. Skills scale very little from 1-20 (perhaps as little as +4 at 20 compared to 1), whereas the power of what PCs can do with their actions explodes (a fighter having one +6 attack at lvl 1, but four at +11 at lvl 20 - at the very least).

I don't want to call it casting a spell, but similar to the barbarians fear. I'm asking here so I don't blow the game up. Paladins have compel Duel and that's cool. Why can't a rogue spinning daggers cause a little anxiety? Like taunt in 3.5 was used or bluff, social skills used in combat.

I have to give them something. I thought about just letting them take the martial adept feat, its just 1 superiority die and just call it something else but the mechanic works the same like feinting does. Perhaps you could roll your sleight vs anothers insight and next round get a benefit.

I mean guys can always multiclass and grab the bane spell and call it a day or even the magic adept feat and call the spell something else and use their skill vs the enemies skill, which could work vs them.

I don't want to muddle the game, and once per short rest seems adequate

Telling me I'm crazy and wrong is perfectly fine and "skill have no use in combat" is fine. People can select the magic adept feat.

[Slipperychicken]

Feinting: Give up one attack (or bonus action), roll dex(deception) vs defender's wis(insight). If you succeed, your next attack this turn has advantage.

Pocket Sand: As feinting, but uses dex(sleight of hand) instead of dex(deception).

Swiping: Give up one attack, roll dex(sleight of hand) vs defender's wis(perception). If you succeed, you take one item that isn't held or securely fastened to the creature's person. For instance, you could take a necklace off someone's neck or an item from his pack, but not a worn gauntlet or a held holy symbol.

Steal: Give up one attack, str(athletics) vs defender's str(athletics) or dex(acrobatics). This is like Swiping, but lets you steal objects right out of peoples' hands, such as a weapon or a magic wand. You can also take some more secured equipment this way (such as a boot, helmet, gauntlet, cloak, backpack, or normal clothing), but not worn armor.

Knowledge: No action, roll a knowledge skill appropriate to the creature you're fighting (DC 15 for obscure monsters, 20 for really obscure ones, 25 for ones you really shouldn't know). If you succeed, you recall the creature's strengths and weaknesses.

Disarm, Shove/Shove Aside, Grapple, Climb Atop: As normal.

Hiding: As normal

Intimidation: Spend an attack, roll cha(intimidation) vs wis(insight). If enemy fails, he has disadvantage on his next attack roll.

[Malifice]

You can already use Help action in combat to grant advantage to an ally in combat, but only against a creature within 5 ft of you.


emphasis mine

So the question becomes, is it fair/balanced to allow someone to give the advantage to themselves, in exchange for needing to roll a skill check? I'm leaning toward a yes myself.

It will, as always, take an action slot.

DC 10 skill check let's you target a creature that's not adjacent when helping an ally.

Deception or sleight of hand to distract them. Intimidate to frighten them for a round. And so forth.

[Fast Jimmy]

This could easily turn these houserules into a straight-up increase in power. The idea with these specials costing an action is that they give you additional options, but not ones that are likely to eclipse your existing abilities. Skills scale very little from 1-20 (perhaps as little as +4 at 20 compared to 1), whereas the power of what PCs can do with their actions explodes (a fighter having one +6 attack at lvl 1, but four at +11 at lvl 20 - at the very least).

Having an option that is equally powerful to some of your basic action options (like Attack or casting a Cantrip) is not an increase in power, it is offering an equivalent option.


I can think of dozens of things that can be done in combat to use an Action that are exponentially better than burning an Action and rolling a skill check (that could easily fail with Bounded Accuracy) all to just gain advantage on an attack next turn, when your opponent (or you) could be dead, outside of range or not the most relevant target.

Instead of having the cost of an Action, I'd be fine with using a Bonus Action or maybe Movement (this would make sense if using a skill like acrobatics). Burning the most powerful currency in the Action Economy system for something as common, easy and low value as Advantage is crazy to me. That's not offering another option... that's deliberately handicapping a player who wants to use that option.

[Fast Jimmy]

DC 10 skill check let's you target a creature that's not adjacent when helping an ally.

Deception or sleight of hand to distract them. Intimidate to frighten them for a round. And so forth.

Well, now this is going the other way... a DC 10 skill check to FRIGHTEN? That's a pretty powerful status - *everyone* has Advangage on the target and they can't make any movements towards the person who caused the Frighted status. There are Long-Rest-dependent spells who do this with higher DC checks and burn a spell slot.

There has to be a happy medium between making the skills so uber powerful that everyone would use them ten times a fight and making them so lame and expensive that it would be stupid to not use your more conventional actions in every circumstance imaginable.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think a good example is this:

My DM ruled that my nimbly-bimbly Dex melee character can perform an Acrobatics check against an enemy that is Large or bigger that uses my movement action. If I pass vs. the creatures' Atheltics check, I gain Advantage on the first attack my character makes that round.

This isn't game breaking (again, Advantage on one Attack is absolutely nothing to write home about), it can't be used every fight (unless I am fighting big creatures every fight) and it doesn't shackle my character from doing something cool at the expense of me wasting a round in combat.

Maybe limit deception checks to only humanoid targets. Sleight of hand checks against enemies not using natural weapons. Intimidation checks to "taunt" only on targets within 10 feet, etc. Focus on limiting how many instances it can be applied rather than just slapping a huge action cost to it and call it a day.


My opinion, at least. Anything that is going to cost me an Action is not going to be used; I've already got Attacks, Class features, racial abilities and spell slots competing for that.

[djreynolds]

I'm here just asking for reasonable advice for or against this. I have no problem having guys just take the martial adept feat and renaming it, magical adept feat, or multiclassing.

Often in combat, someone may give up an attack action to shove. Doing so may allow others advantage. An EK may cast a spell and until higher levels will lose out on an attack for it.

Is it unreasonable for a fighter to take the magical adept feat for bless or bane. Is it unreasonable for a paladin to cast bless or bane or to use misty step. There are many instances where a bonus action, especially for a two-handed weapon fighter is left un-used. This could fill that gap.

Negatives are fantastic, but also give me a crumb.

[Malifice]

Well, now this is going the other way... a DC 10 skill check to FRIGHTEN? That's a pretty powerful status - *everyone* has Advangage on the target and they can't make any movements towards the person who caused the Frighted status. There are Long-Rest-dependent spells who do this with higher DC checks and burn a spell slot.

There has to be a happy medium between making the skills so uber powerful that everyone would use them ten times a fight and making them so lame and expensive that it would be stupid to not use your more conventional actions in every circumstance imaginable.

Actualy I would make it a check to frighten with a save (8+cha+prof) to resist.

Also cool with using insight to predict a targets next move (gaining advantage on your next check in addition to knowing what he's up to).

Etc

[djreynolds]

I think a good example is this:

My DM ruled that my nimbly-bimbly Dex melee character can perform an Acrobatics check against an enemy that is Large or bigger that uses my movement action. If I pass vs. the creatures' Atheltics check, I gain Advantage on the first attack my character makes that round.

This isn't game breaking (again, Advantage on one Attack is absolutely nothing to write home about), it can't be used every fight (unless I am fighting big creatures every fight) and it doesn't shackle my character from doing something cool at the expense of me wasting a round in combat.

Maybe limit deception checks to only humanoid targets. Sleight of hand checks against enemies not using natural weapons. Intimidation checks to "taunt" only on targets within 10 feet, etc. Focus on limiting how many instances it can be applied rather than just slapping a huge action cost to it and call it a day.


My opinion, at least. Anything that is going to cost me an Action is not going to be used; I've already got Attacks, Class features, racial abilities and spell slots competing for that.

See, this is good. It allows players who have proficiency in skills like insight and deception to get some use out of them. I mean what's the point of taking the entertainer background (gladiator) and not getting anything for all the years of surviving pit fights.
The martial adept feat could be fleshed out to allow this to happen and its already limited.

[Malifice]

See, this is good. It allows players who have proficiency in skills like insight and deception to get some use out of them. I mean what's the point of taking the entertainer background (gladiator) and not getting anything for all the years of surviving pit fights.
The martial adept feat could be fleshed out to allow this to happen and its already limited.

Do what I do and give it 2 dice. It becomes an actual reasonable option.

[djreynolds]

See 2 dice that's good as well.

No one swinging a sword or playing a pick up game of basketball is doing it silently. The use of intimidating the opponent, talking trash has always been used. The bard spinning a staff is not as dangerous as the shielded knight, but they bard is scary and you run right into the paladin's sword anyhow.

Sometimes people who prefer the martial types hate the idea of spells and magic, I get it. Its part of their bravado. But you're still using your mind tactically. This is allowing an option for you to use personal skills just as honed as your sword swinging is, without it being a spell or magic.

When you move to attack what are you doing? Screaming, yelling, coolly spinning your sword, or menacingly tapping your greatsword in your other hand as you strut.

A wizard spinning his hands should scare everyone, "he's casting a fireball." But he wasted all of his spells, but the enemy doesn't know and they scatter and he casts magic missile.

I don't want to kill the game or make it OP or bog it down. But though the wizard is scaring off all the fodder, the enemy bard is skilled in arcana and beats his deception and stands there and puts an arrow in the wizard's pie hole with advantage.

It could be cool. Use your movement perhaps, say it costs you half to do it, I don't know, and it doesn't eat up you attack, bonus or reaction, once or twice a short rest is fine, skill proficiency vs opposing skill proficiency, with next round advantage if you win or disadvantage now if you lose.