What additional skills would you include in 5e?

[gfishfunk]

I don't think there is anything very lacking, per se, I was just tinkering. Mine are largely unnecessary.

One for me would be Knowledge: Military, and knowledge: Economics. Either one could fall under history.

It could be cool if there were a 'tailing' skill for following people through the city, rather than a combo of perception and stealth. After all, you aren't hiding but blending in while you follow.

Mechanical Tinkering could be good in a steampunk or gnomish invention setting. A lot of that can already be done with the gnomish tinker tools.

I would like to see proficiency in Riding for mounts, akin to proficiency in land vehicles and sea vehicles.

[Naanomi]

I would like to see proficiency in Riding for mounts, akin to proficiency in land vehicles and sea vehicles.
My assumption is that Animal Handling covers it, because often Animal Handling is of limited utility (especially past low level play).

I think the basic skills cover a lot, but I could imagine more tool proficiencies... merchant tools for example (weights, scales, abacus, and so on); and maybe a generic 'Profession' skill (that could cover your military or economics skills, as well as farming, investment, and anything else as a 'catchall' that profession/craft/knowledge covered in the 3.X era)

[Tanarii]

Animal Handling is the Ride skill. They just made it broader than Ride. But my experience is that's it's most common use by players.

I think it depends heavily on what kind of game you want to run. IMO the skills included in the game are based around the assumption that players are adventurers by profession, and will be mostly be doing dungeon, wilderness and urban adventuring-type things during game play. Anything else is assumed to be a generic ability check, if there's some reason the task isn't assured to succeed or fail. Tool proficiency seem to primarily be there to add a little bit of character background flavor, especially Artisans and Instruments, or are particularly suited to adventuring-type tasks (Thieves, Navigators, in some games Disguise Kit & Forgery Kit).

If you don't use that as a base assumption, then a LOT of other skills make sense for PCs to get proficiency bonuses to instead of just a base ability check. Certainly a variety of narrow Lore fields instead of the broadly generic adventuring 4 provided in the PHB, as well as far more Artisan's Tools.

Some ideas ...

In a spy campaign:
Charisma (Gather Information)
Intelligence (Cryptography)
Dexterity (Tailing) and should include counter-tailing

In a mercenaries campaign:
Intelligence (Strategy & Tactics) - could be two skills, also variant Wisdom might apply
Intelligence (Logistics & Organization)
Constitution (Endurance)
Charisma (Command)

[Kane0]

Yeah Int (Logistics) was one I used once in a game we ran a fort.

I suppose the more 'specialised' skills are better off as tools, since the skills are meant to be broad.

[Hrugner]

I wouldn't want to expand the list too much. Letting people take proficiency in specific stat checks that don't fall under any of the skills would be a good idea, except for initiative of course. I would like to see a magical craftsmanship skill, one that lets you control the shaping of illusions and crafted objects to a higher degree. As things stand your craftsmanship is entirely DM dependent except where you need to be proficient with a specific tool, I'd rather group it all under one thing. Either that, or just ensure casting stat based proficiency for all those things without requiring tools. I'd also like a "theory" skill, something you can roll when you need to guess if something will work before you try it. It would function as a knowledge check for the unknown, and as a way of revealing DCs to the player before attempting an unusual task. Mostly it would be a way of conferring better in world understanding to the players.

For shadowing someone, I tend to use survival. You're trying to remain inconspicuous and interpret where the traveler is going without being seen and directly watching them as little as possible. It's just tracking something up close. I use it for shaking a tail as well provided you've maybe the perception check to know you're being tailed or decided to assume you were being tailed.

[Sariel Vailo]

Cha skill hug I think everyone needs a hug

[mephnick]

IMO the skills included in the game are based around the assumption that players are adventurers by profession, and will be mostly be doing dungeon, wilderness and urban adventuring-type things during game play. Anything else is assumed to be a generic ability check, if there's some reason the task isn't assured to succeed or fail. Tool proficiency seem to primarily be there to add a little bit of character background flavor

Exactly. D&D is about adventuring, at least it's supposed to be. Things like economics aren't important to dungeon delvers who come home and blow their cash on liquor and steak before heading out again. The base skills more than cover adventuring. They throw people who don't want to adventure a bone with artisan/crafting skills for some reason, but if you really want economics and spycraft to be important you should play a different system.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I might consider bringing back the Streetwise (CHA) skill for campaigns with a lot of urban adventures. IMHO none of the existing CHA skills in 5E really overlap with it in a meaningful way. It's a forgotten skill.

[Luccan]

I might consider bringing back the Streetwise (CHA) skill for campaigns with a lot of urban adventures. IMHO none of the existing CHA skills in 5E really overlap with it in a meaningful way. It's a forgotten skill.

Wasn't Streetwise INT? It was a knowledge skill, right? That being said, since the idea is being, well, "streetwise" I could see it tying into any of the three mental stats in some way.

[Mjolnirbear]

I'd ditch animal handling and performance. Those should be tools. I might roll Nature into survival: they overlap frequently.

I'd clarify that passive checks are the old take ten.

I find the remainder fairly broad. Magical crafting? Arcana check to shape the illusion just right. History? Might rename 'civilization' because its the recorded word not passage of time. Military? History is shaped by wars. And economics.

It's hard to think of an additional skill that's not already covered.

[Kane0]

I'd like to rename 'History' to 'Lore'. Just fits better in my head I guess.

I'd also add Thievery as a skill instead of a tool, it even fits nicely at the bottom of the list alphabetically speaking. Would make a nice sibling to Sleight of Hand, maybe even roll them together if you like.

[Sindeloke]

We use Tactics & Logistics (int) due to a campaign heavily concerned with the beginning of a war; it allows characters to prepare their own side effectively and, more frequently, understand the movements, motivations and weak points of the enemy.

It's also a steampunk setting so there's Clockwerking (int) and Engineer's tools. These let you figure out and manipulate, respectively, the various machines, mechanical traps, and constructs that fill the world (and repair your own).

The Nature/Survival thing is interesting. I've always understood it as Nature is an Int check to demonstrate academic knowledge about the natural world - creature types, the history of local druid circles, biology and Earth Science - while Survival is a Wis check to demonstrate practical skill in moving through the wilds - tracking, finding food and water, setting up a decent shelter. Nature tells you that the green berry mellifluous aria and contains vitamin C and D. Survival tells you that gorberries grow in the shade near rivers and are a good supplement to a meat diet in winter.

History and Streetwise would be the same thing, now that it's been mentioned; civics and the broad motions of societies vs how to find the pub with the best music. I should add that back in, it'd be useful in the intrigue part of the campaign.

[Naanomi]

Wasn't Streetwise INT? It was a knowledge skill, right? That being said, since the idea is being, well, "streetwise" I could see it tying into any of the three mental stats in some way.
I think that a lot of what was 'streetwise' got rolled up into the background system to a degree?

[Tanarii]

I might consider bringing back the Streetwise (CHA) skill for campaigns with a lot of urban adventures. IMHO none of the existing CHA skills in 5E really overlap with it in a meaningful way. It's a forgotten skill.


Wasn't Streetwise INT? It was a knowledge skill, right? That being said, since the idea is being, well, "streetwise" I could see it tying into any of the three mental stats in some way.D&D 3.5 Streetwise (Cha)

D&D 5e the following are Charisma checks, no proficiency applies. Which is why I said I'd probably make Charisma (Gather Information) a skill in an appropriate campaign.
• Find the best person to talk to for news, rumors, and gossip
• Blend into a crowd to get the sense of key topics of conversation

[KorvinStarmast]

Skill: Constrain Rules Lawyer
Ability: Charisma
Description: On a successful roll (opposed charisma check) the Player who is attempting to constrain the other player (Rules Lawyer) says "knock it off." All rolls by the Constrained player are from that point forward made with disadvantage. When the constraining player deems that the rules lawyer has indeed knocked it off by stating "welcome back to the game," the constrained condition ends, and rolls are no longer made with disadvantage.

[gfishfunk]

I think that a lot of what was 'streetwise' got rolled up into the background system to a degree?

I agree that it did, but I also assert that doing so was ineffective.


D&D 3.5 Streetwise (Cha)

D&D 5e the following are Charisma checks, no proficiency applies. Which is why I said I'd probably make Charisma (Gather Information) a skill in an appropriate campaign.
• Find the best person to talk to for news, rumors, and gossip
• Blend into a crowd to get the sense of key topics of conversation

I like it.

New related question: would you enjoy class granted abilities that allowed you to calculate skills in different ways? I know it is specifically authorized by the PHB -- but it always confuses my players when I initiate it as a DM and gets vetoed when I initiate it as a player.

Something like Barbarians class feature as level 4: When you fail an intimidation check using charisma, you may immediately make a follow-up check using replacing your Charisma modifier with Strength.

Or for a thief rogue at level 3: when you make a deception check, you may replace your Charisma modifier with Intelligence or Wisdom.

Or again, for a druid at level 3: when you make a Knowledge: Nature check, you may replace your Intelligence modifier with Wisdom.

I generally prefer to stay away from promoting class monostats, but for some checks it does make sense to occasionally replace things for class-specific exceptionalism.

[Laurefindel]

I think that a lot of what was 'streetwise' got rolled up into the background system to a degree?

Streetwise has about as much rolled into backgrounds and class features as survival does, yet survival still exists as a skill. I am ambivalent about this skill-background overlap, I rather wish they would synergize.

[Fishyninja]

I'd say the only one I'd add, but could be considered an overlap with Investigation is Logic. Used specifcially when debating points with people. Again would be Int based.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm mildly tempted to bring back Endurance as a skill. It is keyed to constitution and might be seen as utterly useless, but there were times when it really did the job.

But I was thinking of putting in a roll that could be used to prevent death. I sorta like the idea of a barbarian being a teeny bit harder to kill even when you think they should be dead.

[Mjolnirbear]

Medicine either needs to be a tool or removed or completely rewritten. Let it do something useful, or get rid of it.

I'd rather make it useful. Right now most medicine checks require a prop, the healing kit. The healing kit can instead provide advantage on medicine checks. Medicine checks can now:
* stabilise someone at 0hp, DC = 10 +5x death save failures.
* aid in short rest healing, DC 15 to add your Wisdom bonus to each hit die roll
* during a long rest, try to remove conditions such as poisoned, blinded, stunned, and paralysed (but not exhaustion) or cure diseases or poisons. Patient gets an extra save if you pass your medicine check.
* reattach a limb, DC 15, disadvantage if it is not attempted within 10 minutes.
* provide knowledge about anatomy, medicine, medical procedures, and identify poisons and diseases.
* can craft healing potions and antitoxins

[Mjolnirbear]

New related question: would you enjoy class granted abilities that allowed you to calculate skills in different ways? I know it is specifically authorized by the PHB -- but it always confuses my players when I initiate it as a DM and gets vetoed when I initiate it as a player.

Something like Barbarians class feature as level 4: When you fail an intimidation check using charisma, you may immediately make a follow-up check using replacing your Charisma modifier with Strength.

Or for a thief rogue at level 3: when you make a deception check, you may replace your Charisma modifier with Intelligence or Wisdom.

Or again, for a druid at level 3: when you make a Knowledge: Nature check, you may replace your Intelligence modifier with Wisdom.

I generally prefer to stay away from promoting class monostats, but for some checks it does make sense to occasionally replace things for class-specific exceptionalism.

I do this ALL THE TIME.

Intimidating with Strength is the classic example. But you can do it with intelligence too. ("Hmmm, that wedding bracelet tells me you're a family man... Id hate for something to happen to them... ")

Arcana with constitution... Yes, the casting time is really that long.

Religion with constitution: you thought purification rituals were easy??

Thieves tools with intelligence: this bad guy is devious, let's check for traps in this lock first.

Survival with constitution: desert thirst, hacking at jungle vines all day, walking in hip-deep snow...

Dexterity with athletics: leg sweep for a trip attack.

Insight with intelligence: forceful statements? Eye contact for too long? Signs of lying!

[LordFluffy]

Not a skill, but I'd like to Rope added as a tool proficency. I'd even like to see a Rope Mastery feat that allows you to create snares and lassos.

[Talionis]

I wouldn't add any, but we are liberal with using different attributes to check skills like strength for intimidation. Also for some things it's nice to give additional bonuses where skills overlap which isn't always better.

[mephnick]

Not a skill, but I'd like to Rope added as a tool proficency. I'd even like to see a Rope Mastery feat that allows you to create snares and lassos.

You don't want feats that actually restrict options. I'd just assume adventurers can do that make snares etc already and just have it be a dex check anyone can try. A tool proficiency would be ok though.

[Sindeloke]

Medicine either needs to be a tool or removed or completely rewritten. Let it do something useful, or get rid of it.

I'd rather make it useful. Right now most medicine checks require a prop, the healing kit. The healing kit can instead provide advantage on medicine checks. Medicine checks can now:
* stabilise someone at 0hp, DC = 10 +5x death save failures.
* aid in short rest healing, DC 15 to add your Wisdom bonus to each hit die roll
* during a long rest, try to remove conditions such as poisoned, blinded, stunned, and paralysed (but not exhaustion) or cure diseases or poisons. Patient gets an extra save if you pass your medicine check.
* reattach a limb, DC 15, disadvantage if it is not attempted within 10 minutes.
* provide knowledge about anatomy, medicine, medical procedures, and identify poisons and diseases.
* can craft healing potions and antitoxins

I would make reattaching a limb at least DC 20. But yes, this is a good fix for Medicine. We gave it a 1/short rest heal per person of its own rather than adding to hit dice healing, but we definitely also use the treating diseases and poisons thing (DC equal to infection DC). I've also let a player use it to determine the right amount of poison to incapacitate but not kill a particular NPC based on race, gender and weight.

[Hairfish]

Game Design

[Sigreid]

I might consider bringing back the Streetwise (CHA) skill for campaigns with a lot of urban adventures. IMHO none of the existing CHA skills in 5E really overlap with it in a meaningful way. It's a forgotten skill.

To me this would be insight.

Personally I'm not interested in them adding more skills. I think everything can be boxed up pretty nicely in what we have.

[Strill]

Alternatively, you could add a new category of "Secondary skills", that are treated similarly to tool proficiencies, and cover more obscure or niche stuff.

[warmachine]

Current Affairs (INT) - international diplomacy, national politics and who's who.
Engineering (INT) - includes architecture
Geography (INT)
Planes (INT) - encyclopaedic knowledge of planar geography is not similar to understanding of arcane science
Profession (specialised) (INT) - anything not covered by a skill or tool
Streetwise (CHA) - already described by others in this thread

Skills that I think make sense but are pointless
Alchemy (INT) - alchemical analysis of useful materials doesn't need tools but alchemy is overshadowed by magic.
Commerce (INT) - what makes money, where to sell, and what's not making money despite what the books say, is too boring for the game.
Linguistics (INT) - deciphering languages in ancient tombs and remote locations is exciting but wiped out by the Comprehend Languages spell.

[JakOfAllTirades]

To me this would be insight.

Personally I'm not interested in them adding more skills. I think everything can be boxed up pretty nicely in what we have.

For certain uses of the old Streetwise skill, Insight makes a lot sense, and thanks for pointing that out.

[djreynolds]

I'd like to see some group skill combos, I know there is advantage but I would like that.

And more skill use in combat, the idea of a valor bard spinning a halberd is a cool image... hello performance.

A paladin who actually had a high religion proficiency quoting verses/ scriptures like Samuel Jackson

[Squiddish]

I'd ditch animal handling and performance. Those should be tools.

What tool exactly do you use for calming animals? Is it the same for a lion as for a horse? No? Then it can't be a tool proficiency.

What tool do you use to put on a skit? To do a dance? To sing? You need to actually use a tool in order to count as a tool proficiency.

[Tanarii]

Pretty sure the logic is that 'tools' are lesser focused proficiencies, not broad generally applicable proficiencies.

Ie 'Skill' = primary proficiency, 'Tool'= secondary proficiency.

Personally I see Tools put to some rather inventive use, but they are far more focused in when they apply. Despite it being the default rule that they apply to any ability check, and skills the default rule being they only apply to one ability check.

[Sir cryosin]

Unless your playing a skill monkey. You're only getting so few skills 4. two from back ground and two from class. Adding more skills would just be a gimmick for skill monkey's because most players will pick the based must need ones like perception, investigation, persuasion, Athletics. Skills that a character needs to be a Adventure. Looking out for danger. Looking for the hidden door or finding Clue's. Getting better deals on gear or saleing stuff you found in the dungeon. Climbing out of that pit of acid that some f****** a****** put in the middle of the f****** room.

[Malifice]

Seduction and Combat.

The former's use is obvious. The latters use is for combat manoeuvres, replacing athletics for all of them.

[Sigreid]

Current Affairs (INT) - international diplomacy, national politics and who's who.
Engineering (INT) - includes architecture
Geography (INT)
Planes (INT) - encyclopaedic knowledge of planar geography is not similar to understanding of arcane science
Profession (specialised) (INT) - anything not covered by a skill or tool
Streetwise (CHA) - already described by others in this thread

Skills that I think make sense but are pointless
Alchemy (INT) - alchemical analysis of useful materials doesn't need tools but alchemy is overshadowed by magic.
Commerce (INT) - what makes money, where to sell, and what's not making money despite what the books say, is too boring for the game.
Linguistics (INT) - deciphering languages in ancient tombs and remote locations is exciting but wiped out by the Comprehend Languages spell.

I think Engineering and Architecture are covered under Tinker's tools, Carpentry, Masonry and Smithing. I mean in the standard D&D world the height of engineering technology is pretty much the water wheel and the siege weapons.

[Tanarii]

I think Engineering and Architecture are covered under Tinker's tools, Carpentry, Masonry and Smithing. I mean in the standard D&D world the height of engineering technology is pretty much the water wheel and the siege weapons.
Tools proficiency only applies when actually used. They don't apply for 'Lore', unless your DM isn't aware of that or intentionally changes the way they work.

So Intelligence (Engineering) and Intelligence (Architecture) might still be useful skills, in the right type of campaign.

[Pex]

The problem is if you add in more skills you would have to give all characters more proficiency slots because without them the new skills are just ability checks so why have them in the first place. When you add in more proficiency slots players will tend to use them for the more desired already existing skills anyway. The 5E skills system isn't designed for such complexity. It's a one player's bug is another player's feature thing. To add in the more complexity you want, i.e. adding in more skills, your better option is deciding for yourself which already existing skills should encompass your new skill, perhaps with changing the ability score modifier. For example, Streetwise is Persuasion (Int). Gather Information is regular Persuasion (Cha).

[Sigreid]

Tools proficiency only applies when actually used. They don't apply for 'Lore', unless your DM isn't aware of that or intentionally changes the way they work.

So Intelligence (Engineering) and Intelligence (Architecture) might still be useful skills, in the right type of campaign.

Does it say that anywhere? I ask because I did just assume that using the tool covered why you were using it and what you could do with it. Even today a carpenter doesn't just know how to shape and connect wood, he can build a shed or a house.

[Honest Tiefling]

The problem is if you add in more skills you would have to give all characters more proficiency slots because without them the new skills are just ability checks so why have them in the first place.

Overlap has been an issue with my group so far, so I could see the argument that more skills means more chances to diversify. Then again, I'm going to see what happens when I give fighters/barbarians an extra skill anywho.


What tool exactly do you use for calming animals? Is it the same for a lion as for a horse? No? Then it can't be a tool proficiency.

This is kinda why I would keep the Animal Handling skill, since a carrot probably isn't going to help much with a lion. If the Animal Handling skill isn't getting much use, I think one way to fix that is to add in exotic mounts. Giant riding eagles, pegasi, hippocampi and elephants are probably worthwhile investments. If only for the fact that you could probably leave the elephant alone for a bit and it might have taken out mundane threats to your camp while you were spelunking.

[Tanarii]

Does it say that anywhere? I ask because I did just assume that using the tool covered why you were using it and what you could do with it. Even today a carpenter doesn't just know how to shape and connect wood, he can build a shed or a house.
"A tool helps you to do something you couldn’t otherwise do, such as craft or repair an item, forge a document, or pick a lock. Your race, class, background, or feats give you proficiency with certain tools. Proficiency with a tool allows you to add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you make using that tool. Tool use is not tied toa single ability, since proficiency with a tool represents broader knowledge of its use. For example, the DM might ask you to make a Dexterity check to carve a fine detail with your woodcarver’s tools, or a Strength check to make something out of particularly hard wood."

So it must be an ability check using the tool. You could use carpenters tool to build a shed or a house once you have the plans for one, or if you've done it before. But it wouldn't teach you how to design a house from basic principles. You could use Masons tools to build a stone tower or mine tunnels if you've done that before or got the plans for it, but it wouldn't teach you how to design fortifications or a new kind of arch from basic principles. Or for that matter neither would either bonus apply if you were trying to identify wood / stone and analyzing its properties.

I feel like there was something else somewhere, maybe DMG, but I couldn't find it in a quick search.

Edit: it was under DMG section on ability checks, proficiency, tools. /facepalm

DMG page 233:
"Having proficiency with a tool allows you to apply your proficiency bonus to an ability check you make using that tool. For example, a character proficient with carpenter's tools can apply his or her proficiency bon.us to a Dexterity check to craft a wooden flute, an Intelligence check to craft a wooden secret door, or a Strength check to build a working trebuchet. However, the proficiency bonus wouldn't apply to an ability check made to identify unsafe wooden construction or to discern the origin of a crafted item, since neither check requires tool use."

[Sigreid]

"A tool helps you to do something you couldn’t otherwise do, such as craft or repair an item, forge a document, or pick a lock. Your race, class, background, or feats give you proficiency with certain tools. Proficiency with a tool allows you to add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you make using that tool. Tool use is not tied toa single ability, since proficiency with a tool represents broader knowledge of its use. For example, the DM might ask you to make a Dexterity check to carve a fine detail with your woodcarver’s tools, or a Strength check to make something out of particularly hard wood."

So it must be an ability check using the tool. You could use carpenters tool to build a shed or a house once you have the plans for one, or if you've done it before. But it wouldn't teach you how to design a house from basic principles. You could use Masons tools to build a stone tower or mine tunnels if you've done that before or got the plans for it, but it wouldn't teach you how to design fortifications or a new kind of arch from basic principles. Or for that matter neither would either bonus apply if you were trying to identify wood / stone and analyzing its properties.

I feel like there was something else somewhere, maybe DMG, but I couldn't find it in a quick search.

Edit: it was under DMG section on ability checks, proficiency, tools. /facepalm

DMG page 233:
"Having proficiency with a tool allows you to apply your proficiency bonus to an ability check you make using that tool. For example, a character proficient with carpenter's tools can apply his or her proficiency bon.us to a Dexterity check to craft a wooden flute, an Intelligence check to craft a wooden secret door, or a Strength check to build a working trebuchet. However, the proficiency bonus wouldn't apply to an ability check made to identify unsafe wooden construction or to discern the origin of a crafted item, since neither check requires tool use."

That last bit reads to me as though it does cover design, but for some reason doesn't cover evaluation of an existing object. And being able to design and build but not appraise is just weird to me.

[Dudewithknives]

My view on skills:

1. Strength needs more skills.

I have played 5e from day 1. In the entire time I have never once seen anyone make strength a priority stat unless they were a barbarian or they were going great weapon master.

2. Get rid of performance as a skill.

The skill literally does nothing but let you stay in nicer accommodations during downtime.
Bards never roll it for their abilities anymore.
Every instrument is its own tool use not performance.
The only time anyone will ever roll it if for RP reasons which is not that big of a deal considering people who would use it would be trained in charisma anyway.

3. Specify what Acrobatics can and can't do.
Because so few people ever use strength around here every time someone would need to roll athletics like jumping or climbing, the gm just let's the roll acrobatics instead because nobody is trained in athletics.

4. Make perception in class for everyone.

They will just have to get it from a background or play an elf if you don't.
No character I have ever seen make it to the table has done so without training in perception.

5. Investigation

See what I mentioned about acrobatics.
Never once have I seen a player take investigation because every dm just let's them roll perception.

6. Tools

If people are going to go to the point of taking them, make them have a point.

Due to the almost unusable crafting mechanics what is the point of training in the tools to do it?

Ex. I played an assassin rogue all the way to level 17, who specialized in subtly using poisons.

Never once did I get a chance to craft a poison or even once use a poison kit.

Not only because it would take 20 days of work 8 hours a day, and 50g to make one dose of basic poison that only has a dc 10 save to only do 1d4 damage, where so many things are resistant to immune to poison, but also because every dm I have ever played with will only let you craft poisons from the animals you actually fight and even then only if they are listed in the poisons in the dmg.

Good luck.

There could be an entire book put out for nothing but crafting, tools and alternate uses for skills and their examples.

[Honest Tiefling]

I disagree with you on Athletics/Acrobatics and on Investigation/Perception.

The former is easy: Would Brawny McMuscleton outperform a tiny 12 year old gymnast, or vice versa? Or if you prefer, the Flash or the Hulk. I think visualizing the difference is easy enough, with a few overlapping cases (such as Dexterity to jump when you have time and space for a running start).

Investigation being separated from Perception is a bit fuzzy, but I think it's easy enough to consider one poking around at something, and another being aware of one's surroundings. The difference between the Nerdy Wizard finding and studying runes and being distracted from the creeping vampire while the Ranger might not be as good at searching something, but sure is more aware of their surroundings. Perception alone can be such a god-skill if it is not distinct from investigation, because it advances the plot and prevents ambushes.

Performance is underwhelming, that I will agree with wholeheartedly. 3rd edition basically made it a skill tax for bards and a harp-measuring contest if you had more then one bard present. I'd like to see something done with Performance to make it interesting for a bard to take, but not a tax or screwing over other people using skills.

[Dudewithknives]

I disagree with you on Athletics/Acrobatics and on Investigation/Perception.

The former is easy: Would Brawny McMuscleton outperform a tiny 12 year old gymnast, or vice versa? Or if you prefer, the Flash or the Hulk. I think visualizing the difference is easy enough, with a few overlapping cases (such as Dexterity to jump when you have time and space for a running start).

Investigation being separated from Perception is a bit fuzzy, but I think it's easy enough to consider one poking around at something, and another being aware of one's surroundings. The difference between the Nerdy Wizard finding and studying runes and being distracted from the creeping vampire while the Ranger might not be as good at searching something, but sure is more aware of their surroundings. Perception alone can be such a god-skill if it is not distinct from investigation, because it advances the plot and prevents ambushes.

Performance is underwhelming, that I will agree with wholeheartedly. 3rd edition basically made it a skill tax for bards and a harp-measuring contest if you had more then one bard present. I'd like to see something done with Performance to make it interesting for a bard to take, but not a tax or screwing over other people using skills.

I agree with you on the athletics/acrobatics and investigate/perception thing I just wish they would say specifically what they don't do so people would stop taking 1 and using it for both.

[Anderlith]

I'd add Domestics, stuff like darning socks & cooking.

[Dudewithknives]

I could also see replacing tool proficiencies with the profession skill and a crafting skill.

That way you could greatly reduce crafting tines and things with a good skill check.

Essentially just fix crafting in general.

[Tanarii]

Essentially just fix crafting in general.Ive never seen a TRPG with a 'fixed' crafting system. Nor house rules for it. Not even CRPG have honest to god working crafting systems. So I'd rather have the incredibly vague rules of 5e that basically leaves it in the hands of the DM.

[Rhedyn]

All of them.

There are no skills in 5e. There are skill contest, but actual skill rules are nonexistent.

[mephnick]

Ive never seen a TRPG with a 'fixed' crafting system. Nor house rules for it. Not even CRPG have honest to god working crafting systems. So I'd rather have the incredibly vague rules of 5e that basically leaves it in the hands of the DM.

That's because crafting isn't adventurous or heroic and has no place in D&D and other TTRPGs. Like...why are you playing D&D if you want to be a... what...a tailor? Rant rant rant

[Tanarii]

That's because crafting isn't adventurous or heroic and has no place in D&D and other TTRPGs. Like...why are you playing D&D if you want to be a... what...a tailor? Rant rant rant
9/10 would read another rant rant rant :smallamused:

[Arc-Royal]

It could be cool if there were a 'tailing' skill for following people through the city, rather than a combo of perception and stealth. After all, you aren't hiding but blending in while you follow.

That sounds like an acceptable time to let Deception apply, in my opinion. I'd probably give a player at my table a choice between Stealth and Deception rolls, in case one is higher than the other.

As for what skills I'd consider adding, I think I'd probably add back some of the old knowledge skills. Arcana, History, Nature, and Religion don't feel like they cover everything. XD

[Tanarii]

They definitely don't cover everything, that's what (for PCs in the default game) a Intelligence check is for.

Also it's worth pointing out that the DMG has some great skill variants. One of which is effectively 'my character has a background in thing, so I should get a proficiency bonus to this ability check'. In other words, if your guy was a former mason, then yeah maybe he gets a bonus to anything building or design or analysis type checks.

Basically, it's a throw back to the way AD&D did things before NWP, but integrated with the 5e ability check system that underlies all non attack roll/save resolution.

[Deleted]

I don't think there is anything very lacking, per se, I was just tinkering. Mine are largely unnecessary.

One for me would be Knowledge: Military, and knowledge: Economics. Either one could fall under history.

It could be cool if there were a 'tailing' skill for following people through the city, rather than a combo of perception and stealth. After all, you aren't hiding but blending in while you follow.

Mechanical Tinkering could be good in a steampunk or gnomish invention setting. A lot of that can already be done with the gnomish tinker tools.

I would like to see proficiency in Riding for mounts, akin to proficiency in land vehicles and sea vehicles.

I would remove the skills currently in 5e and then just use the ability checks. If you are doing something related to your background or class, you add proficiency (DM says when).

So, your background is a farmer and you are a fighter. You would have prof with Int checks related to knowledge about growing/harvesting plants. You would also have prof if you attempted to shove a creature with a STR check.

This way more skills can be added to the game, without getting things bogged down.


So I would add every skill possible?

[djreynolds]

I would remove the skills currently in 5e and then just use the ability checks. If you are doing something related to your background or class, you add proficiency (DM says when).

So, your background is a farmer and you are a fighter. You would have prof with Int checks related to knowledge about growing/harvesting plants. You would also have prof if you attempted to shove a creature with a STR check.

This way more skills can be added to the game, without getting things bogged down.


So I would add every skill possible?

That is a good idea, we sort of do that now.

But it would/could simplify stuff.

Another idea is too just get rid of proficiency in skills, and then expertise would just all you to add your proficiency in 2 skills at a pop. You would still have jack of all trades/remarkable athlete

[Deleted]

That is a good idea, we sort of do that now.

But it would/could simplify stuff.

Another idea is too just get rid of proficiency in skills, and then expertise would just all you to add your proficiency in 2 skills at a pop. You would still have jack of all trades/remarkable athlete


It's a system used in other games that have simple/flexible skill systems.

I wouldn't get rid of prof, if anything I would make it the central focus so that ability scores can be done away with (sort of).

But ive been playing Numenera (3 ability scores) and ready this... http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?475101-Ability-Skills-(reworking-ability-scores)-(3-X-4e-5e)-(WIP)-(PEACH)

[Cybren]

That's because crafting isn't adventurous or heroic and has no place in D&D and other TTRPGs. Like...why are you playing D&D if you want to be a... what...a tailor? Rant rant rant

Those kinds of background professional skills lend color to a character and campaign, though, and I appreciate campaigns with ample downtime between adventures

[Tanarii]

Those kinds of background professional skills lend color to a character and campaign, though, and I appreciate campaigns with ample downtime between adventures
And 5e Tools and the crafting system is fine for downtime crafting. It needs a lot of DM hand-waving and in some edge cases some fine tuning, but IMO that's not an issue when you're talking about something that's about color and for downtime.

[mephnick]

Yeah I have no problem with players taking 30 seconds saying "Gonna craft some poisons while we're handwaving our week of rest. How much do I get? OK." But some people want to focus characters on crafting, and want systems with complex rules, material waste costs, skill checks, apprentices, workshops, variable economy etc. Why are you playing D&D? Crafting is for NPCs.

[Cybren]

And 5e Tools and the crafting system is fine for downtime crafting. It needs a lot of DM hand-waving and in some edge cases some fine tuning, but IMO that's not an issue when you're talking about something that's about color and for downtime.

Downtime crafting is the only meaningful definition of crafting.

[Deleted]

Downtime crafting is the only meaningful definition of crafting.

What if, during battle, my bow is broken and I want to rig up a suitable replacement?

Low roll and it imposes disadvantage, medium roll and it works for a few attacks, high roll and it's perfectly fine.

It would be nice to see actual mechanics for a system like this so that my fantasy character can be fantastic when crap happens. Also would make sundering weapons an ok option for the DM.

[Cybren]

How is your battle lasting the months it would take for a skilled bowyer to make a new bow?

[Deleted]

How is your battle lasting the months it would take for a skilled bowyer to make a new bow?

Who said it is taking months?

As I said, he rigged up a bow. The better the roll the better the bow.

You know, because this is a fantasy game.

Maybe it's repairing the bow I had, maybe it's taking the spine of my enemy, maybe it's grabbing a tree branch.

Things fly, dragons exist, magic exist, but you are worried about someone rigging up a bow real quick?

[Vaz]

Lucid Dreaming. Because Saveless Mind Reading and Planar Travel while grappling and pulling creatures into Damage Over Time Infinite Duration nightmare realms from the waking world which can only be contested and escaped by opposed checks on the same skill is amazing.

[Cybren]

Who said it is taking months?

As I said, he rigged up a bow. The better the roll the better the bow.

You know, because this is a fantasy game.

Maybe it's repairing the bow I had, maybe it's taking the spine of my enemy, maybe it's grabbing a tree branch.

Things fly, dragons exist, magic exist, but you are worried about someone rigging up a bow real quick?

This is an incredible logical fallacy but it's one I've seen you make before. It's bad, stop it.

[Beleriphon]

I'd also add Thievery as a skill instead of a tool, it even fits nicely at the bottom of the list alphabetically speaking. Would make a nice sibling to Sleight of Hand, maybe even roll them together if you like.

I think the logic is that any character, not just those skilled in Thievery, can be proficient in the use of "thieves tools". The reason being is that any character and drop some coin and gain proficiency in tools, but they can't with skills.

*edit* On Crafting Skills

I've always wondering about playing D&D and wanting detailed crafting skills in game. That isn't what D&D is about. Its like playing Dragon Age and wondering why I can't upgrade my Asari assault rifle. Different games need to have different expectations.

[Deleted]

This is an incredible logical fallacy but it's one I've seen you make before. It's bad, stop it.

You started talking about something completely different from me.

The fact that you took my question and went crazy realistic with it, in a fantasy game, and didn't address what I actually said...

Well, your fallacies are showing bub. So check yourself before you start throwing shade :). Just because you have having trouble with me asking a fantasy question about a fantasy game... I don't really know why you would even bring up months lol.

Again

What if, during battle, my bow is broken and I want to rig up a suitable replacement?

Low roll and it imposes disadvantage, medium roll and it works for a few attacks, high roll and it's perfectly fine.

It would be nice to see actual mechanics for a system like this so that my fantasy character can be fantastic when crap happens. Also would make sundering weapons an ok option for the DM.

[Cybren]

You started talking about something completely different from me.

The fact that you took my question and went crazy realistic with it, in a fantasy game, and didn't address what I actually said...

Well, your fallacies are showing bub. So check yourself before you start throwing shade :). Just because you have having trouble with me asking a fantasy question about a fantasy game... I don't really know why you would even bring up months lol.

Again

What if, during battle, my bow is broken and I want to rig up a suitable replacement?

Low roll and it imposes disadvantage, medium roll and it works for a few attacks, high roll and it's perfectly fine.

It would be nice to see actual mechanics for a system like this so that my fantasy character can be fantastic when crap happens. Also would make sundering weapons an ok option for the DM.

Why can't my rogue invent telecommunication so that they can more easily steal money via using security leaks they program into the banking software? it's a fantasy game, afterall

[Beleriphon]

Low roll and it imposes disadvantage, medium roll and it works for a few attacks, high roll and it's perfectly fine.

It would be nice to see actual mechanics for a system like this so that my fantasy character can be fantastic when crap happens. Also would make sundering weapons an ok option for the DM.

That sounds like 100% a DM call situation. I don't see why the game needs to have rules for something even remotely like that. I mean isn't being proficient in a bowyer's kit going to get you the ability to make bows. What that means in the field is up to the DM.

[Cybren]

That sounds like 100% a DM call situation. I don't see why the game needs to have rules for something even remotely like that. I mean isn't being proficient in a bowyer's kit going to get you the ability to make bows. What that means in the field is up to the DM.

Yeah i'm not particularly sure why you'd want a comprehensive set of rules for that sort of thing when even with rules for sundering isn't particularly likely to come up. (also, no, really, "building a complex weapon system that normally takes months or even years to complete in an effort that takes less than six seconds" isn't "cool fantasy powers for a cool fantasy character", it's just nonsense.)

[Honest Tiefling]

I also am a fan of the idea that magical arms and armor are far less prone to mundane forms of breaking. Makes sense how you can wander into a dungeon and wander right back out with a magical club that still works after a few thousands years of neglect.

Being able to repair mundane weapons is I think fitting for a warrior, but adds in fiddly little details that will seriously slow down most games and impair warriors. Adding in weapon breaking so a warrior can repair it seems pretty artificial overall, and a bit of a time waste in the end.

[Beechgnome]

My view on skills:

1. Strength needs more skills.

I have played 5e from day 1. In the entire time I have never once seen anyone make strength a priority stat unless they were a barbarian or they were going great weapon master.

Snip.

I'd like to see a Strength skill that encompasses what in 1E was the bend bar/lift gate check. 5E has lift capacities, but I'd like to see a skill that lets you push yourself and do beyond what you are normally capable of, like Adrenaline or Exertion, or even at its most literal Weightlifting.

How much more the weight or task is beyond your strength could dictate DC.

You could just make regular checks, but I feel that if there's not a skill for a task then DMs don't design challenges with those tasks.

My experience is that fighters don't have much exploration value in part because DMs (myself included) never remember to design dungeons where physical barriers are the problem. Everything is stealth, magic or charisma. Maybe an extra strength skill or two could tip that balance.

[jaappleton]

I kinda miss "Streetwise" from 4E.

"I want to roll Streetwise to find someone that can tell us a little more about the plot device."

It just kinda cut to the chase a bit.

[Honest Tiefling]

I kinda miss "Streetwise" from 4E.

"I want to roll Streetwise to find someone that can tell us a little more about the plot device."

It just kinda cut to the chase a bit.

I disagree with this one. Streetwise was strange to me, as it basically seemed like a giant handwave to skip over segments of plot. In 4e there were so few skills that in the groups I was in, (with 4-5 players) we often doubled up on skills a little too much. Not to mention I'd really dislike the idea of making 'roguish' characters take this AND diplomacy when Streetwise is very situational.

In 5e, if you have diplomacy and have the Urchin or similar background, I would say that is a fine approximation of the FLAVOR of the skill. The flavor is really very nice, even if I think that the skill itself is a bit of a tax.

I would also like to say that I would like to see a 'break things' skill for strength. It has come up many, many, many times. Door in the way? Break it. Bridge with baddies on one end? Break it. Wagon in the way? Break it. Bar brawl? Break the table, throw pieces. Seems like it COULD be athletics, but doesn't seem quite right somehow.

[Beechgnome]

I would also like to say that I would like to see a 'break things' skill for strength. It has come up many, many, many times. Door in the way? Break it. Bridge with baddies on one end? Break it. Wagon in the way? Break it. Bar brawl? Break the table, throw pieces. Seems like it COULD be athletics, but doesn't seem quite right somehow.

I think a reasonable breakdown could be::

Athletics for climbing, swimming, jumping and shoving/grappling; (as is)
Battering for destroying, bending and generally breaking things;
Weightlifting for lifting, pushing, pulling, toppling and throwing great distances.

[jaappleton]

I disagree with this one. Streetwise was strange to me, as it basically seemed like a giant handwave to skip over segments of plot. In 4e there were so few skills that in the groups I was in, (with 4-5 players) we often doubled up on skills a little too much. Not to mention I'd really dislike the idea of making 'roguish' characters take this AND diplomacy when Streetwise is very situational.

In 5e, if you have diplomacy and have the Urchin or similar background, I would say that is a fine approximation of the FLAVOR of the skill. The flavor is really very nice, even if I think that the skill itself is a bit of a tax.

I would also like to say that I would like to see a 'break things' skill for strength. It has come up many, many, many times. Door in the way? Break it. Bridge with baddies on one end? Break it. Wagon in the way? Break it. Bar brawl? Break the table, throw pieces. Seems like it COULD be athletics, but doesn't seem quite right somehow.

As far as skipping over plot, when I DMed for 4E, I led the players directly to whom would service the plot more.

"Guys, I checked the tavern, and people said Herman the Wise over on the outskirts of town would have more knowledge on this."

[Deleted]

That sounds like 100% a DM call situation. I don't see why the game needs to have rules for something even remotely like that. I mean isn't being proficient in a bowyer's kit going to get you the ability to make bows. What that means in the field is up to the DM.

Why have it?

Because DMs shouldn't have to make things up on the spot when a simple mechanic can give you so many options and something to fall back on.

Crafting is something sooooo many people complain about not being in the rules. Sunder too, but you can't sunder cause that takes away the martial's one thing.

It's cool and gives the DM a way to use sunder if they want OR for players to use their imagination and attempt to makeshift something. Longsword gets broken? Rig it up to work as a short sword (changing the length of the handle, or whatever).

Rigging
Action

DC: 9 or Lower: You fail to rig something up.

DC: 10 = What you jerry rig up works as the item you attempt to make. You have disadvantage on and roll you make with the item or it works half as well as intended (such as a makeshift bowl leaking). This items breaks in 3 uses. A typical list of items would follow (thieves tools, weapons, etc)

DC: 13 = Item jerry rigged doesn't break after 3 uses. When a rigged item breaks, it is unusable for rigging. (Though I love the idea of a barbarian going from a great sword to a longsword, to a short sword, to a dagger.

DC 15 = Item doesnt impose disadvantage.

Now someone with thievery has a way, without DM handwaving, to turn those bobby pins into a lock pick. One of the most basic fantasy tropes put there.

You can exoand this to other things besides weapons. Bowls, specific kits (climbing), or whatever else within your group's reason.

And if a player is always using it and bases their character around it? Awesome! Pushing player ingenuity is something a DM should look forward to, not frown against.

[Pex]

That sounds like 100% a DM call situation. I don't see why the game needs to have rules for something even remotely like that. I mean isn't being proficient in a bowyer's kit going to get you the ability to make bows. What that means in the field is up to the DM.

So my ability to make a bow is dependent on who is DM that day. That's my beef with 5E skills. My ability to ______ is dependent on who is DM that day and not how I choose to make my character.


Yeah i'm not particularly sure why you'd want a comprehensive set of rules for that sort of thing when even with rules for sundering isn't particularly likely to come up. (also, no, really, "building a complex weapon system that normally takes months or even years to complete in an effort that takes less than six seconds" isn't "cool fantasy powers for a cool fantasy character", it's just nonsense.)

It is madness and impossible to have rules for every possible thing a player would want to do, but that doesn't mean there can't be guidelines to follow to define what is means for a skill attempt to have the various DCs.

However, I'm now starting to think this making an impromptu bow during combat issue is less a 5E skills issue and more a fighter can't have nice things issue. What the DC is, for this particular thread, is less important than if the archer can make the roll at all.

[NNescio]

How is your battle lasting the months it would take for a skilled bowyer to make a new bow?

Well, just 10 days for a long bow, or 5 days for a short one. Hardly months.

Still not practical in the middle of a battle, I give you that, but even a 1-minute crafting time wouldn't be either.


Who said it is taking months?

As I said, he rigged up a bow. The better the roll the better the bow.

You know, because this is a fantasy game.

Maybe it's repairing the bow I had, maybe it's taking the spine of my enemy, maybe it's grabbing a tree branch.

Things fly, dragons exist, magic exist, but you are worried about someone rigging up a bow real quick?

As DM I actually wouldn't really allow "rigging up a bow real quick", even in a fantasy setting. Breaks verisimilitude far too much (yeah, yeah, 6s rounds, etc. etc). It's not something that can be done fast (unlike whittling a makeshift knife, which would still take minutes), even for a skilled bowyer. Restringing a bow would probably take at least minute (shops in real life seem to take upwards of 15 minutes) -- it's not as trivial as unsheathing a weapon. Crafting one from scratch (using a wooden stave and spare bowstrings) would probably require an hour, minimum (real-life bowyers require multiple hours, at minimum, even if they skip the "apply finishing" step).

(Composite bows are right out, as they require laborious gluing under controlled conditions.)

Of course, Guy at the Gym fallacy and all that, so I do realize ruling this way can hose martials. Which is why I generally don't break my players' weapons and handwave them maintaining theirs when they rest.

Now, perhaps for you this (lack of weapon breakage) breaks verisimilitude more than insta-craft weapons (improvised or no), so yes, you are free to rule it that way at your tables. I prefer doing things my way though, as it is more in-line with heroic fantasy stories (weapons/armor rarely break unless it is a plot point, no insta-crafting unless done by magic, etc. etc.)


So my ability to make a bow is dependent on who is DM that day. That's my beef with 5E skills. My ability to ______ is dependent on who is DM that day and not how I choose to make my character.

That's why you take Fabricate, paired with proficiency whichever tools you need to make the item (woodcarver's in the case of a bow, or maybe fletcher's if the DM ruled something more specific).

Not a Wizard or Bard, and want to craft without spending ludicrous amounts of downtime? Eh, screw martials.

But yeah, instantaneous crafting of most weapons usually fall under the purview of magic. Hacking together a club or a makeshift spear/javelin might take a few actions, but bows in particular are not something that can be jury-rigged together in less than one minute. Guy at the gym fallacy and all that, but this is hardly a problem unless the DM makes a habit of breaking his players' weapons (in which case he's a jerk.)


It is madness and impossible to have rules for every possible thing a player would want to do, but that doesn't mean there can't be guidelines to follow to define what is means for a skill attempt to have the various DCs.

However, I'm now starting to think this making an impromptu bow during combat issue is less a 5E skills issue and more a fighter can't have nice things issue. What the DC is, for this particular thread, is less important than if the archer can make the roll at all.

I'm all for giving martials nice things, but crafting impromptu bows IN THE MIDDLE of combat (without magic) is where I draw the line. There is no way you can hack a piece of wood into a suitable shape, notch it, and then string it THAT fast. Yes, guy at the gym fallacy, etc. etc., but this is even beyond the capabilities of Hercules, Beowulf and Cúchulainn. This isn't minecraft. Do it during downtime or during a long rest. A short rest is the bare minimum, really.

[Arkhios]

Would you count Common Sense as a skill of its own? :smalltongue:

Jokes aside, I think Economics as proposed by OP, or just Appraise would be a nice addition. While most of the time I played 3.5 and Pathfinder, Appraise was almost never used skill, I think it deserves to have a more meaningful impact on the game. How would a simpleton barbarian know the value of a shiny gem, regardless of the size, shape, and type? To a simple barbarian, it's just a shiny stone. For someone who's more into that kind of things could realize that the pristine, colorless and sharply cut gem would actually be a diamond worth 10.000 gp!

[Beechgnome]

Another skill I'd like to see would be something that encompasses assessing an enemy; like the Mastermind/Battlemaster abilities. Different from insight, which is more about divining intentions. Call it Assess and make it available as a class feature an available skill to fighters, paladins and rangers.

For battlemaster/mastermind, treat it like Banneret does persuasion; double proficiency and grant it as free skill at 7th/9th level.

This way any player can try to Assess, even if they don't have proficiency, but those guys would do it best. Could be a Wisdom check, giving Rangers a little leg up in terms of synergy, which is appropriate I think.

Edit: See above.

[Cybren]

Would you count Common Sense as a skill of its own? :smalltongue:

Jokes aside, I think Economics as proposed by OP, or just Appraise would be a nice addition. While most of the time I played 3.5 and Pathfinder, Appraise was almost never used skill, I think it deserves to have a more meaningful impact on the game. How would a simpleton barbarian know the value of a shiny gem, regardless of the size, shape, and type? To a simple barbarian, it's just a shiny stone. For someone who's more into that kind of things could realize that the pristine, colorless and sharply cut gem would actually be a diamond worth 10.000 gp!

I mean, shopping is one of the most fun parts of an RPG, so there probably should be some general framework for how haggling or bargain hunting works

[Tanarii]

You could just make regular checks, but I feel that if there's not a skill for a task then DMs don't design challenges with those tasks.youve been playing with 5E DMs that haven't read the 5e DMG on how to use Ability Scores, and are not running the game according to the 5e design philosophy.

[Pex]

But yeah, instantaneous crafting of most weapons usually fall under the purview of magic. Hacking together a club or a makeshift spear/javelin might take a few actions, but bows in particular are not something that can be jury-rigged together in less than one minute. Guy at the gym fallacy and all that, but this is hardly a problem unless the DM makes a habit of breaking his players' weapons (in which case he's a jerk.)



I'm all for giving martials nice things, but crafting impromptu bows IN THE MIDDLE of combat (without magic) is where I draw the line. There is no way you can hack a piece of wood into a suitable shape, notch it, and then string it THAT fast. Yes, guy at the gym fallacy, etc. etc., but this is even beyond the capabilities of Hercules, Beowulf and Cúchulainn. This isn't minecraft. Do it during downtime or during a long rest. A short rest is the bare minimum, really.

We're cool here. I accept allowing fighters nice things doesn't mean allowing them everything.

[NNescio]

We're cool here. I accept allowing fighters nice things doesn't mean allowing them everything.

Oh. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[mephnick]

I mean, shopping is one of the most fun parts of an RPG, so there probably should be some general framework for how haggling or bargain hunting works

If shopping was the exciting part of my table top game I think I'd find a different DM. Unless you're playing an urban campaign the important parts of D&D are supposed to take place in the wilds and dungeons. Economics is a skill for a different system that actually might encourage it in some way.

[Cybren]

If shopping was the exciting part of my table top game I think I'd find a different DM. Unless you're playing an urban campaign the important parts of D&D are supposed to take place in the wilds and dungeons. Economics is a skill for a different system that actually might encourage it in some way.

Shopping for the special gear you need for any given mission is my favorite part, and i understand that not everyone shares my personal likes and dislikes, I always considered the long list of mundane gear a character can shop for when creating their character one of the most fun parts of D&D. in 4E my sorcerer started with a camel named Phillip

[Pex]

Oh. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

You didn't misunderstand. Rather, I'm deciding to accept your point of view for the instance of impromptu crafting a bow in combat. You acknowledged the issue and decided in good faith that such a thing is not a good fit for your campaign anyway.


Shopping for the special gear you need for any given mission is my favorite part, and i understand that not everyone shares my personal likes and dislikes, I always considered the long list of mundane gear a character can shop for when creating their character one of the most fun parts of D&D. in 4E my sorcerer started with a camel named Phillip

Persuasion for haggling is enough, and if you had the Guild Artisan background you could make the argument that you would have proficiency if you weren't proficient in Persuasion or possibly Advantage instead whether you're proficient or not. The same would apply if you had the ability to make the item yourself such as a tool proficiency regardless of background since you would know the item's true value.

[Tanarii]

The problem with haggling / bargaining for shopping, unless it's a really big ticket item, is it's usually* very boring for the other players at the table. It's something that should generally* happen off screen.

Now, in some campaigns it might be worth having such a skill exactly for such 'off-screen' big ticket haggling / bargaining. Because the DM doesn't want to handle selling that attunement required item no one wants, or the weapon / armor no one in the party can use, by running what's effectively a mini-adventure just to sell the damn thing. She might just make it a check and move on. And in that case, a special skill to be good specifically at such a thing might be appropriate.

Or she could just make it part of the Persuasion skill. There's a reason Guild Artisan's get the skill, IMO.

*added some wishy-washy words because speaking with certainty means someone will claim I mean it's always the case.

[Specter]

I would only include Intelligence (Tactics), because I believe a martial should have a better (or at the very least similar) understanding of formations and battlefield strategies than a Wizard.

[mephnick]

I would only include Intelligence (Tactics), because I believe a martial should have a better (or at the very least similar) understanding of formations and battlefield strategies than a Wizard.

They probably should but how often would this mechanic come up? It's probably dealt well enough with an INT check and granting advantage depending on background. Also, not every character with fighter class levels knows about battlefield strategy. It would be odd if my fighter who's nothing but a merc gets an automatic bonus to war tactics.

[Specter]

They probably should but how often would this mechanic come up? It's probably dealt well enough with an INT check and granting advantage depending on background. Also, not every character with fighter class levels knows about battlefield strategy. It would be odd if my fighter who's nothing but a merc gets an automatic bonus to war tactics.

Agreed, that's why it should be a skill (or at least a background feature) so that you only have this knowledge if you invest in it. The 'how often will it come up' I can't answer... but more than Medicine I guess.

[Tanarii]

The 'how often will it come up' I can't answer... but more than Medicine I guess.I've yet to see an Int check used for anything that I'd see as falling under a "Tactics" skill. OTOH I haven't seen 5e used in mass battles yet. And IMX squad tactics are usually completely ignored by players the majority of the time in favor of 'running around like headless chickens and focus firing' and calling that tactics. :smallbiggrin: Or else it's assumed to be allowed without gating with a check the few times.

Whereas I know I've have seen Medicine used. I can't recall if actual proficiency in Medicine was involved. But I've definitely seen Wisdom (Medicine) checks to stabilize! (I can't recall why there were no Healing Kits available, but I know I've seen actual checks in 5e.)

[Vogonjeltz]

I agree with you on the athletics/acrobatics and investigate/perception thing I just wish they would say specifically what they don't do so people would stop taking 1 and using it for both.

Athletics broadly speaking lets you do or avoid things using force, Acrobatics lets you avoid things (or move places).

Perception is observation of facts, Investigation is deduction from facts.

Used cleverly, you can often get from Point A to Point B using different abilities and applying different proficiencies.


It would be nice to see actual mechanics for a system like this so that my fantasy character can be fantastic when crap happens. Also would make sundering weapons an ok option for the DM.

5e has this.

DMG 38-41 describes the various types of Fantasy games. What you're describing sounds like pulp fantasy, doing outlandish things that wouldn't hold up to rational scrutiny (which is totally fine!)

Such a thing doesn't require a formalized structure beyond what is pre-existing; that the player describe what they want to do, and the DM adjudicates the outcome.

So, if you're playing a game where it's considered plausible for someone to rip the spine out of a defeated foe, and string it with a tendon, then fire an arrow carved from the arm of a hated enemy, all while in combat, by all means, just do that.

Just bear in mind, that's not the default game type.