3.5 Skills in a 5ed game?

[Hudsonian]

As a DM that came into D&D with 5th edition simplicity, I find that I dislike a lot of things about 3.5. That being said, I recently played a game with some friends and I REALLY liked the 3.5 skill system.

I liked that it is based off of intelligence, it was more detailed, easily expandable, it was totally separate from almost all class feats. (As far as I could tell, there are ten million feats)

It also seems to me that while most things that would bend or break bounded accuracy would make some characters OP or useless, skills are completely outside of that realm. I have noticed that some people don't like expertise, but I think that it would work really well with the 3.5 system of skills.

That being said, I don't know the nuances of the skill system. What do you guys think?

[EvilAnagram]

To me, the 3.5 skill system introduces a lot of complexity without adding depth. The 5e system is simpler and in my opinion far better.

[JeenLeen]

If you use 3.5-based skills, I recommend looking at Pathfinder. It is basically 3.5 with some minor tweaks. One tweak is that it consolidates some skills to make things a bit easier. For example, Disable Device and Pick Locks are consolidated into one skill. Likewise, Listen and Spot are consolidated, as are Hide and Move Silently. (Note: I might have the 3.5 names wrong.)

Pathfinder also has class skills give you a flat +3 bonus and all skills (class or not) cost 1 point per rank, instead of 3.5's how you buy class skills to 1+3 ranks but cross-class to just 1 rank, and cross-class skills costing more. So you could use the proficiencies in 5e to determine which skills are class skills. Make sure to change tools back into skills (ex. Forger's Tools --> Forgery).

Beyond that, I can't really say if this is a 'good idea' or not. I agree that the skill system is pretty divided from other things, so it shouldn't be an issue. It's easier in 3.5 to get higher ability modifiers, so the 5e bonuses from that will be lower, but probably not to a relevant degree. Note that making Int more important helps wizards the most, who really don't need more help, and hurts melee classes that might dump Int.
If you do go this route, I recommend letting players have Int mod bonus starting languages. I personally like a lot of languages known, and it bugs me that it's somewhat limited in 5e (though you can start with a lot with the right combination of race, class, and background.)

[Hudsonian]

As a note, there are currently several good threads on skills. However I think this is the only one mentioning the use of 3.5 skill system in 5th edition Combat system.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?482742-It-Shouldn-t-Be-quot-Mother-May-I-quot
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?483855-Your-Thoughts-on-Different-Ability-Skills


Also, this mix would heavily impact the grapple/shove economy. Thoughts?

[OldTrees1]

That being said, I don't know the nuances of the skill system. What do you guys think?

I am quite familiar with both systems. A straight import is doable but puts a lot of pressure on the DM to adjust things. Instead I suggest identifying the parts one likes about the 3.5 system and implementing them in the 5E system.

You liked that it was:
Based on Int
More detailed (A bit vague in that I don't know which of the ways that it is more detailed you are referencing.)
Expandable

So the first to tackle is expandable. By this I assume you mean the ability to add new skills to the list of skills (since 5E already presumes applying the existing skills to uses not explicitly stated). The easiest way to import this(for either system) is just to allow new skills to be added. (Knowledge Strategy&Tactics is a personal favorite of mine).

Basing skills on Int is a bit tricker given the low number of skills known by a particular player. However if the players really latch onto the idea of adding skills, double the class granted skills (to preserve the Rogue and Bard themes) and give +1 skill per Int modifier.

Now if by more detailed you mean more examples of skill uses, just straight up add those uses (5E already assumes this). If on the other hand you meant more detailed than (Non-Prof, 1/2 Prof, Prof, Expertise), then you would want a skill point system. I don't have a ready to use Prof->Skill point conversion but this thread could whip 3 up if you ask.

[Hudsonian]

If you use 3.5-based skills, I recommend looking at Pathfinder.
I'll see if I can find anything on it. Unfortunately, the Pathfinder Core books seem less available than the 3.5 books, so I'm not sure where to find that info.


So you could use the proficiencies in 5e to determine which skills are class skills. Make sure to change tools back into skills (ex. Forger's Tools --> Forgery).
Also good point. I'll take a look into that.


Note that making Int more important helps wizards the most, who really don't need more help, and hurts melee classes that might dump Int.
As a part of the 3.5 skill system the different classes got different numbers of skills+mod. I think that giving the wizards a lower static skill bump could account for this, since their skill increases should theoretically be intelligence based anyway.

[Hudsonian]

I actually don't feel like the two systems would work with each other at all... One is built off of much smaller numbers, with very little growth, the other has lvl 1 characters with a +7 in multiple skills.



More detailed (A bit vague in that I don't know which of the ways that it is more detailed you are referencing.)
What I meant by detailed is that you could get better at specific things more easily. Instead of every so many levels getting better at "Sleight of Hand" in general, you could choose escape artist, rope use, pickpocketting, traps, or locksmithing. All of these things seem to be covered by one skill in 5E. I liked how in 3.5 you can start out REALLY good at one thing, then slowly get better at the others over time.

As far as expandable, I think I used the wrong word (although the system IS less disturbed by tossing a few more skills in the mix). I think what I like is that the system allows for the growth over time in a much more cohesive way than, "BTW, you are now better at everything you were ok at before." So if your character started off really bad at talking to people, but the face of your party developed agoraphobia and you've been forced into that role, there is no way for your character to develop that skill (without extreme cost).

[Grod_The_Giant]

How about this:

You have (Proficiency Bonus) *(Number of Proficient skills) + (Intelligence Modifier) skill points, which may be invested in any skill or tool on a 1:1 basis, up to a maximum of your Proficiency Bonus. So if you have 6 points at level 1, you get get a +2 bonus to three skills, a +1 bonus to six, or any combination thereof. As, oh, a one-month downtime activity, you can reassign one skill point. Expertise increases your maximum by (Proficiency Bonus) and each iteration grants (Proficiency Bonus) extra skill points.

That should give you more granularity without really changing any numbers? If you want to change the number of skills, figure out the percent difference and increase skill point totals accordingly. (So if you add 5 skills to the ~20 that 5e starts with, that's a 25% increase so everyone should get 25% more skill points, rounded to the nearest whole number).

If you want more of a toss-up between being good at one thing and being good at many things, you could simply set the maximum investment higher for everyone.

[OldTrees1]

I actually don't feel like the two systems would work with each other at all... One is built off of much smaller numbers, with very little growth, the other has lvl 1 characters with a +7 in multiple skills.


What I meant by detailed is that you could get better at specific things more easily. Instead of every so many levels getting better at "Sleight of Hand" in general, you could choose escape artist, rope use, pickpocketting, traps, or locksmithing. All of these things seem to be covered by one skill in 5E. I liked how in 3.5 you can start out REALLY good at one thing, then slowly get better at the others over time.

As far as expandable, I think I used the wrong word (although the system IS less disturbed by tossing a few more skills in the mix). I think what I like is that the system allows for the growth over time in a much more cohesive way than, "BTW, you are now better at everything you were ok at before." So if your character started off really bad at talking to people, but the face of your party developed agoraphobia and you've been forced into that role, there is no way for your character to develop that skill (without extreme cost).

Ah, so I interchanged those.
The more detailed option requires having a longer skill list and more skills known per PC. A rather easy adjustment(although, one that means favoring 3.5 over pathfinder)
The expandable(not a good word choice but I can't think of a better one) is about continuing to make skill investment choices as one continues to grow(rather than all skills being chosen at 1st level). This essentially necessitates a skill point system. Your example even suggest a rapid reaction skill point system(the skill starts to develop the very next level). This point alone means the 5E skill system(even point buy variants of it) is ill suited to mimic what you liked about the 3.5 system.

So I think the question is no longer "Are there any problems with importing the 3.5 skill system?" and more "How do we successfully import the 3.5 skill system in the best possible way?".

The greatest problems with the 3.5 skill system for a bounded accuracy game is how quickly the bonuses can exceed the 1d20 range. To counter this I suggest max ranks in a skill be capped at 1/HD instead of 3+1/HD and I suggest allowing no misc modifiers(including skill synergies). That way characters with the same raw talent will remain on the same RNG even as their chances of success drift apart.

Edit: Grod has a good idea (especially using the 1 month downtime reallotment to allow for a faster reaction than even 3.5).

[JackPhoenix]

I'll see if I can find anything on it. Unfortunately, the Pathfinder Core books seem less available than the 3.5 books, so I'm not sure where to find that info.

Pretty much the whole Pathfinder is available through its SRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/)

[Vogonjeltz]

As a DM that came into D&D with 5th edition simplicity, I find that I dislike a lot of things about 3.5. That being said, I recently played a game with some friends and I REALLY liked the 3.5 skill system.

I liked that it is based off of intelligence, it was more detailed, easily expandable, it was totally separate from almost all class feats. (As far as I could tell, there are ten million feats)

It also seems to me that while most things that would bend or break bounded accuracy would make some characters OP or useless, skills are completely outside of that realm. I have noticed that some people don't like expertise, but I think that it would work really well with the 3.5 system of skills.

That being said, I don't know the nuances of the skill system. What do you guys think?

Removing the needless complexity, lack of balance, and the utter nonsense that intelligence would enable more skill proficiencies (better balance and climbing and jumping because of Int is simply ridiculous) is probably the number one advancement of 5th edition. Reintroducing that would be just awful.