Increasing skill modifiers in 5e

[foL]

So, I was sitting down today to make my new cleric character using the DnD 5e system, and I noticed that despite being the supposed characters who are unparelleled in matters of religion, I can get at best a +1 in religion with a standard build, whereas something else could get a +5. This isn't the first time I've run into problems trying to give my characters the skills that I think they should have.

Is there a way of 'training' my character's religion skill? Am I missing some crucial detail?


Edit: just realised I can get double proficiency, so +3... That rule seems intentionally designed to break the game a tad.

[Greywander]

Proficiency culminates in a +6 bonus. The best you can get without proficiency is +5 if you raise Intelligence to 20. If you play a Knowledge cleric, you can double your proficiency bonus, to a max of +12.

So yes, at 1st level the wizard is likely to have an as good or better Religion bonus, but you should edge them out as you level up.

Also, your statement that "standard build" is only a +1 bonus indicates to me that you're dumping Intelligence. So you're at best uneducated and at worst mentally deficient, and you wonder why your bonuses to a scholarly field are lacking? If you want to play a scholar, put some points into Intelligence.

Either don't dump Intelligence or don't expect to be "unparalleled in matters of religion".

[Moradin]

[...]I can get at best a +1 in religion with a standard build [...]?

You would have a +1 to Religion only if your Int modificier is +1 AND you didn't chose Religion as one of the 2 skills you are proficient in. Some solutions:
1) chose Religion as one of the 2 skills you're proficient in. That will apply your proficiency bonus (+2 at first level) to that skill, i.e., if your int modifier is +1, your total would be +3;
2) chose two skills other than religion (e.g., History, Medicine) and then pick the Acolyte Background (http://engl393-dnd5th.wikia.com/wiki/Acolyte) (alternative: Hermit (http://engl393-dnd5th.wikia.com/wiki/Hermit), same reason). This will add Insight and Religion to the skills you are proficient with;
3) talk your DM into changing Religion from being an Int related skill to a Wisdom related skill; if i'm not mistaken, it was like this in 3E, then it was changed to Int in 3.5;
4) if you're using the Human variant, you can select the Skilled feat (page 270 PHB) at level 1 to have proficiency in 3 skills/tools of your choice.

[Greywander]

You would have a +1 to Religion only if your Int modificier is +1 AND you didn't chose Religion as one of the 2 skills you are proficient in.
I assumed they were proficient in Religion, but were also dumping INT. An INT of 8 is a -1, with a proficiency bonus of +2 balances out to +1.


3) talk your DM into changing Religion from being an Int related skill to a Wisdom related skill; if i'm not mistaken, it was like this in 3E, then it was changed to Int in 3.5;
I actually think it makes more sense for Religion to be an Intelligence skill. Religion is a very scholarly, academic subject. So on the one hand you can have the legalistic expert in religious law and on the other hand you can have the down-to-earth hobo-prophet that can't read but has a greater intuitive understanding of the will of their god. Intelligence is your knowledge of the religion and its history and laws, while Wisdom is how closely attuned to the will of your god you are. They're separate things.

Honestly, clerics strike me as a scholarly class, so I find it odd that there aren't any incentives for them to put points into Intelligence aside from the Religion skill. That said, I think this is more a failing of D&D 5e in general. Monks have the same problem, as you would expect them to be strong but the mechanics implicitly encourage monks to dump Strength.

[Unoriginal]

There's non "skill modifier" in 5e. It's the Ability modifier + proficiency bonus.

In any case, like others have said, your character has either 8 INT and is trained in Religion, or has 12-13 INT and is not trained. In either case, it's not the making of someone who is "uparralled in the matters of religion".

Being a Cleric just means you are the Chosen One of the god, it doesn't mean you are an expert in theology.

[Moradin]

I assumed they were proficient in Religion, but were also dumping INT. An INT of 8 is a -1, with a proficiency bonus of +2 balances out to +1.


I actually think it makes more sense for Religion to be an Intelligence skill. [...].

I did not consider the Int dump. My mistake. Your reasoning makes complete sense. I just assumed that OP is fairly new to 5E and did not consider that, as a cleeric, he could be proficient in Religion.
I agree that Religion should be an Int ability rather than a Wisdom ability. Also, the advice of the double proficiency from Knowledge is very sound advice.

[Anonymouswizard]

There's non "skill modifier" in 5e. It's the Ability modifier + proficiency bonus.

Uh... 'Ability Modifier + Proficiency Bonus' is the 'Skill Modifier'. Just like how in 3.X it was 'Ability Modifier + Skill Ranks' and in 4e 'Ability Modifier + 1/2 level + Proficiency Bonus'.


But yeah, OP Clerics aren't assumed to be scholars in 5e. I do like Knowledge Clerics who take Expertise in Religion, but despite the name clerics are not assumed to be religious officials anymore.

If you wanted a Cleric who's an actual priest you should take the Acolyte background, and I'd generally put both Intelligence and Charisma at 12+. Yes, it's suboptimal, but priests tend to be educated and somewhat good at talking to people just so they can know about their religion and do their job.

[Tanarii]

In any case, like others have said, your character has either 8 INT and is trained in Religion, or has 12-13 INT and is not trained. In either case, it's not the making of someone who is "uparralled in the matters of religion".

Technically, proficiency =/= training. The raw Ability Score already includes training as well as natural talent. Proficiency is just defined as focus, which could mean natural talent, training, or even divinely (or patronly) inspired or instilled capability. But otherwise, your post is spot on.

A character with Int bonus of +4 has high natural talent and training for all Int related activities. One with Int +2 and Religion proficiency has passable talent and training, but more talent and training in religious lore. One with -1 and religion proficiency has low natural ability and training, with slight above average talent and training or whatever in religious lore.

Personally one of my favorites is -1 Int with Investigation proficiency, representing low scholastic training, but slightly above average deductive natural talents.


Being a Cleric just means you are the Chosen One of the god, it doesn't mean you are an expert in theology.Well put. If a player wants a scholarly PC, put a 14 or higher in Int. A scholarly PC with particular talent and training in religious lore, take Religion proficiency and back it up with Int.

If a player wants a PC touched with granted divine power, play a Cleric or a Paladin.


Uh... 'Ability Modifier + Proficiency Bonus' is the 'Skill Modifier'. Just like how in 3.X it was 'Ability Modifier + Skill Ranks' and in 4e 'Ability Modifier + 1/2 level + Proficiency Bonus'.Citation needed. 5e doesn't have skill modifiers. It has Ability Checks, and proficiency bonuses can be applied in certain circumstances. But to my knowledge, at no point does it refer to a skill modifier.

[JackPhoenix]

But yeah, OP Clerics aren't assumed to be scholars in 5e. I do like Knowledge Clerics who take Expertise in Religion, but despite the name clerics are not assumed to be religious officials anymore.

They never were in D&D. Original cleric wasn't a priest, but a vampire hunter. Preaching is for NPCs, PC clerics are divine troubleshooters.

[Tanarii]

They never were in D&D. Original cleric wasn't a priest, but a vampire hunter. Preaching is for NPCs, PC clerics are divine troubleshooters.
2e had specialty priests, if the DM took time to write them. (Or later on, used Players Option to build them.)

[KorvinStarmast]

So, I was sitting down today to make my new cleric character using the DnD 5e system, and I noticed that despite being the supposed characters who are unparelleled in matters of religion, I can get at best a +1 in religion with a standard build, whereas something else could get a +5. This isn't the first time I've run into problems trying to give my characters the skills that I think they should have.

Is there a way of 'training' my character's religion skill? Am I missing some crucial detail?

just realised I can get double proficiency, so +3... That rule seems intentionally designed to break the game a tad.
Magic Item: Headband of Intellect; 19 Int.
Dip one level in rogue: expertise.
Bob's your uncle.

[Naanomi]

Why is a level 1 character expecting to be the unparalleled master at anything?

[Unoriginal]

Why is a level 1 character expecting to be the unparalleled master at anything?

Maybe he'll bump into a scholar, have a theology battle, and his defeat will teach him there are a lot of stronger people in the world.

[Nikarus]

How I've done it as a DM before in older editions, probably would still do it in 5e were any of my players running a cleric/paladin.

Cleric by default gets a +3 to all religion checks when discussing THEIR particular religion/god/whatever. Then they add the relevant scores.

Whenever trying to make checks about OTHER religions, they only get their ability mod + proficiency bonus if they've been trained in religion (IE they were specifically taught about other religions as well as their own)

[Moradin]

[...]

Cleric by default gets a +3 to all religion checks when discussing THEIR particular religion/god/whatever. Then they add the relevant scores.[...]

I would just give them advantage on the check. It's more in style with 5E rules.

[PhantomSoul]

Yeah, Advantage on rolls relating to your religion (or religions you had close contact with) makes sense, since it'll get you the "I might have come upon this information at some point" effect. (At least, for Characters who received some formal training in the religion and/or had "divine contact", depending on the roll scenario!) At our tables it has seemed to work pretty well.

When making a Religion Check that is more Insight-like than History-like or otherwise Intellect-like, you can also see if you can roll a Religion Check using your Wisdom -- instead of Intelligence -- Modifier. This would make sense in cases like determining what your god would likely prefer you do, trying to do a religious ritual without knowing all of the instructions or incantations (arguably that could even be using your Spellcasting Modifier, but here that's equivalent!), or trying to portray your god's preferences in a way that convinces a former religious member to return to the fold (a Charisma-based roll will almost certainly also apply here, whereas the Religion one might not be called at all unless by you).



Citation needed. 5e doesn't have skill modifiers. It has Ability Checks, and proficiency bonuses can be applied in certain circumstances. But to my knowledge, at no point does it refer to a skill modifier.

Meh, this one seems fine as an innovation: Skill Checks kind of exist (well, they're in the PHB in the index, and "send to" Ability Checks), and Modifiers are in the game, and Skills are in the game, so skill modifier makes sense in multiple ways -- at the very least, as a productively created term to refer to the Modifier applied on Skill-related rolls. Plus you can change the Ability Score used for an Ability Check, so in those cases the Skill part is the consistent one! (That said, 5e did make the Ability Score the "main" part by calling them "Wisdom (Insight)" rolls, for example, though that's not how they're described everywhere and isn't how I've heard it used in actual use. Also, since the DM has mastery to change anything and everything as desired, the DM can just decide to use another term and then the players can too eh!)

[Unoriginal]

Plus you can change the Ability Score used for an Ability Check, so in those cases the Skill part is the consistent one!

Nope, the Ability check has a consistent ability score, it's just that sometime you get a proficiency bonus from a skill typically linked to a different ability score.

You always use STR to do strength-related things and INT for intelligence-related things. It's just that if you want to remember something about a sport, INT (Athleticism) makes sense if you are proficient in it.

[PhantomSoul]

Nope, the Ability check has a consistent ability score, it's just that sometime you get a proficiency bonus from a skill typically linked to a different ability score.

You always use STR to do strength-related things and INT for intelligence-related things. It's just that if you want to remember something about a sport, INT (Athleticism) makes sense if you are proficient in it.

Poor phrasing on my part given the terms (this is where Skill Check is a useful term!); you can use a different Ability Score (and therefore its Modifier) for a given Skill, but in the end we're saying the same thing.

[Eric Diaz]

I agree, advantage when dealing with your specific background is the way to go.

You're proficient in religion - which applies to all religions - but when you roll to see if you know something obscure about your own religion, you roll with advantage.

This is a thing that could be in all backgrounds, BTW - I prefer backgrounds like "Former Cultist of the Great Old Ones" instead of Acolyte.

Compare the Uthgardt tribe member from Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide with the PHB's Outlander and you'll see what I'm talking about.

And, of course, don't make the players roll for stuff that should be obvious! Of course the Acolyte of Cthulhu knows it waits dreaming in R'lyeh!

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2017/04/specific-backgrounds-5e-quick-fix.html

Edit: also, the Prodigy feat is worth mentioning, since it partially fixed the lack of an easy source of expertise.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Advantage or just automatically succeeding on normal things about your religion.

INT skills are about scholarly knowledge. Not all clerics are scholars. Especially not *adventuring* clerics. Same with wizards. They're the backyard mechanics who know their engines inside and out with no formal education or training. They may not be able to easily draw the PV diagram for the engine cycle or design the parts, but if you need a smooth running engine, they're your go to person.

And I agree that level 1 characters aren't renowned experts in anything. They're apprentices or just graduated journeymen.

[Beelzebubba]

I assumed they were proficient in Religion, but were also dumping INT. An INT of 8 is a -1, with a proficiency bonus of +2 balances out to +1.

If they dump INT, they are not good with Theological thinking. Why should they be? They lack critical thinking skills and are awful at retention of complex information.

I've known plenty of dumb people that 'should' have been smarter for the jobs they were doing.


Honestly, clerics strike me as a scholarly class, so I find it odd that there aren't any incentives for them to put points into Intelligence aside from the Religion skill.

Why should they all be scholarly? The most effective preachers are incredibly charismatic. Templars are brave and strong. Healers are empathetic and perceptive. Inquisitors see through lies and confront apostates quite forcefully and publicly. Those are all Clerical archetypes that require far different skills from a cloistered scholar.

You want a Cleric that's smart? Dump something else, and realize that Religion and Investigation are incredibly valuable skills in gaining intel advantage on extremely dangerous creatures and sussing out all sorts of useful stuff. Playing smart and careful lets you proactively prepare for threats rather than just reacting to them and hope you have what it takes.

[Spore]

Kill a priest and eat his or her brain to gain their knowledge obviously. It's what your god decrees! :xykon:

[Nifft]

Why is a level 1 character expecting to be the unparalleled master at anything?

He's getting ready to go into a basement and stab rats for pennies.

Clearly he's a grad student, so having some kind of knowledge skill seems natural.

[Naanomi]

He's getting ready to go into a basement and stab rats for pennies.

Clearly he's a grad student, so having some kind of knowledge skill seems natural.
As someone with two post-grad degrees... all that class time does not always translate into practical proficiency bonuses...

[PhoenixPhyre]

As someone with two post-grad degrees... all that class time does not always translate into practical proficiency bonuses...

Amen. As my theoretical focus increased, my practical skills decreased. Theologians often make bad preachers; many actually don't fervently believe in what they study. Physicists often make bad engineers and mechanics. The mindset is very different.

[Naanomi]

Amen. As my theoretical focus increased, my practical skills decreased. Theologians often make bad preachers; many actually don't fervently believe in what they study. Physicists often make bad engineers and mechanics. The mindset is very different.
Probably easier to fervently believe in your theology when there is a multitude of proofs of their existence, and your grad program may have involved a visit to their Divine Realm. Just a guess though, the Athar may disagree

[Knaight]

If they dump INT, they are not good with Theological thinking. Why should they be? They lack critical thinking skills and are awful at retention of complex information.

Obvious snark opportunities about how if anything this should help with theological thinking aside, extensive training and immersion in a culture that venerates a particular subject matter can get one highly proficient in it even if they aren't that bright. 5e being 5e, we see this mainly with adventuring skills (a high level fighter with 10 str/dex/con is still a deadly combatant, and that's one of the flimsier classes), but the same concept could easily apply elsewhere.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Probably easier to fervently believe in your theology when there is a multitude of proofs of their existence, and your grad program may have involved a visit to their Divine Realm. Just a guess though, the Athar may disagree

Are 9+ level clerics that common? And familiarity often reduces faith--instead of being the ineffable and powerful, they're Bob down the street. I have a culture that fully accepts the existence of the gods, but doesn't find them worthy/useful to worship. Of course, if you're in FR you darn well better be devout. Or it's to the Wall with you.

[Nifft]

... and your grad program may have involved a visit to their Divine Realm.

A post-doc is a deceased doc.

A post-doc lecturer has been resurrected or lich-ified.

[Tanarii]

Poor phrasing on my part given the terms (this is where Skill Check is a useful term!); you can use a different Ability Score (and therefore its Modifier) for a given Skill, but in the end we're saying the same thing.Its an important distinction. If you refer to "skill checks" you're implying the skill is the relevant thing when determining what to use, and also often implying everything should be a skill check of some kind.

If you refer to them as "ability checks", you're acknowledging that the ability being used is the important thing when determine what to use, and that everything is an ability check. It's just that some, but not all, also get proficiency bonus from some source, which can be determined second after ability being used.


Advantage or just automatically succeeding on normal things about your religion.

Good point. And while I'm not a fan of "proficient only" checks (because proficiency =\= training), I am always open to the possibility of "different characters have different automatic success, failure, or DC" checks.

A character might not have to make a check at all for common knowledge derived from their personal backstory, be it Race, Class, or Background or two page short story the DM immediately filed in the circular recycling file cabinet.

[Beelzebubba]

Obvious snark opportunities about how if anything this should help with theological thinking aside, extensive training and immersion in a culture that venerates a particular subject matter can get one highly proficient in it even if they aren't that bright. 5e being 5e, we see this mainly with adventuring skills (a high level fighter with 10 str/dex/con is still a deadly combatant, and that's one of the flimsier classes), but the same concept could easily apply elsewhere.

Well, as someone who grew up an immersive religious culture, what most do is arrive at a 'good enough' level of knowledge that works to handle the stuff that they need to deal with on a day-to-day basis, and they'd go to their pastor when something was truly eating them alive. Deep theological knowledge is for church elders - hypotheticals and philosophical blabbering about things that will never actually happen is just a waste of time.

So, I think what you say RE 'training and immersion' is represented closely enough in game terms by DCs. When the challenges are DC 5 or DC 10, average skill is enough. Getting into the range of DC15 is when you need a gifted intellect or a significant amount of training.

PCs who use the Standard Array and harmonize their Backgrounds/Skills can hit DC15 checks more often than not. Those who don't are still above average. Those who dump a stat and ignore a skill are still average at worst. To me, the system seems to be just fine.

[Knaight]

Well, as someone who grew up an immersive religious culture, what most do is arrive at a 'good enough' level of knowledge that works to handle the stuff that they need to deal with on a day-to-day basis, and they'd go to their pastor when something was truly eating them alive. Deep theological knowledge is for church elders - hypotheticals and philosophical blabbering about things that will never actually happen is just a waste of time.

There's an immersive religious culture, and then there's the level of immersion that comes from living at an actual temple for years, serving as a religious officiant of some sort. The immersion is a fair bit deeper there.

[Unoriginal]

There's an immersive religious culture, and then there's the level of immersion that comes from living at an actual temple for years, serving as a religious officiant of some sort. The immersion is a fair bit deeper there.

Not all Clerics do that.

Again, not all Clerics are religious officiants like priests who lived in a temple. That's the Acolyte Background.

On the other hand, I'd agree that most religious folks would not need an Ability check to remember the "common knowledge" of their own cult.

Doesn't mean the common knowledge is accurate, though. Lolth tells the Drow she's the only true deity, for example. Ironically, her clergy are probably the only ones in the community who can know it's not the literal truth.

[Tanarii]

There's an immersive religious culture, and then there's the level of immersion that comes from living at an actual temple for years, serving as a religious officiant of some sort. The immersion is a fair bit deeper there.
Sounds like the Acolyte background to me. Not the Cleric class.

[foL]

I'm pretty new to DnD, and I felt a little silly after I made this thread.
Because I immediately figured out how to get a +5 to religion, and, well, that's about as much as you can ask for, isn't it?
I think I just really wanted to make a religious freak type of character, which is why I chose the Cleric class in the first place. Guess I should have chosen a Priest instead...

[Toadkiller]

The way I address this as a DM is to give the cleric the answer if it seems in line with their background. “Francis, the cleric, recognizes the carving as the holy symbol for Blaz-bit the Slime Mold god of fire. You had a module in it at the seminary.” Not for everything of course, but I find that weaving I their story that way along with a handful of roles makes their class and background more important than the somewhat swingy mechanics.

[strangebloke]

OP, if you want to be good at something in 5e, you have to invest in it. You need to go knowledge cleric or pick up a level of rogue (think of yourself as an inquisitor) or pick up the 'prodigy' feat or a few levels of bard (think of yourself as an evangelist) or at least not dump intelligence if you want to be a brainy theologian. Being an expert means spending build resources.

If you're dealing with a check regarding matters of your religion, as others have said, advantage or auto-success might be appropriate for your DM to give you, depending.

I like to swap ability scores, and I would probably call for a wisdom(religion) check if you were trying to interpret sacred texts, or a charisma(religion) check if you were trying to win a theological argument with a bunch of priests.

I also generally don't allow knowledge-based skill checks if the character has no background, or I impose disadvantage. Some stuff you would never come across in life without formal training, special aptitude, or divine inspiration.

[Tanarii]

I also generally don't allow knowledge-based skill checks if the character has no background, or I impose disadvantage. Some stuff you would never come across in life without formal training, special aptitude, or divine inspiration.Personally, I prefer to leave that decision in the hands of the players as much as possible. But then again, I'm not a fan of "state of the world / characters knowledge" lore checks in the first place.

I agree if a particular character can't have ever known something, no amount of check should allow them to recall it in a time sensitive situation with a chance of failure, or situation in which failure has consequences.

Conversely, due to the way checks work in 5e, if they once knew something and CAN recall it, in a non-time sensitive situation with no consequences for failure, they should be able to recall it automatically by taking ten times as long. Another reason "state of the world / character's knowledge" checks don't really work.

Edit: to counter my own point, most DM's get around automatic success rule for taking ten times as long rule by declaring that the "consequences for failure other than time" are that the character never knew that information if they fail a check. But that means any character should be allowed to check unless they could never have possibly learned the info.

[Greywander]

I'm pretty new to DnD, and I felt a little silly after I made this thread.
Because I immediately figured out how to get a +5 to religion, and, well, that's about as much as you can ask for, isn't it?
I think I just really wanted to make a religious freak type of character, which is why I chose the Cleric class in the first place. Guess I should have chosen a Priest instead...
There is no priest class, the cleric is the closest thing. What people were saying is the cleric class, as a game construct, doesn't perfectly represent the concept of a priest, as a cleric is much more of a battle priest and much less of a scribe priest. Clerics, as a character class, are more likely to be staking vampires than performing weddings, for example.

Personally, I don't see character classes as real things, in-universe. You have a set of abilities defined by the rules of the game, and those abilities come in a package labeled "cleric", but in-universe you could call yourself a priest, scholar, scribe, vampire hunter, preacher, prophet, oracle, or monk (even though "monk" is another character class).

All that said, I'm having trouble getting a bead on what sort of character you might actually want to play. A "religious freak type of character" sounds more like a Zealot barbarian. Or it could be a paladin. You don't need to be knowledgeable about your religion to be dedicated to it. The Religion skill is very much about theology, religious law, the nature of the afterlife, et cetera. If you just want a crazy zealot that kills in the name of their god, look at the Zealot barbarian (found in Xanathar's) or the paladin (any subclass). If you do want to play a more scholarly character, Knowledge cleric is perfect.

[Kurald Galain]

being the supposed characters who are unparelleled in matters of religion

In 5E, you cannot be unparalelled at anything. It will commonly happen that (e.g.) the dumb untrained barbarian will beat you at a religion check, or that you repeatedly fail at something that should be easy. It's all part of the game.

[Tanarii]

In 5E, you cannot be unparalelled at anything. It will commonly happen that (e.g.) the dumb untrained barbarian will beat you at a religion check, or that you repeatedly fail at something that should be easy. It's all part of the game.
... provided the DM calls for checks on easy stuff that should be an automatic success, sets DCs too high, doesn't understand the automatic success with time rules, group checks, passive checks, and allows PCs to make checks to recall things they couldn't possibly have ever known. Sure.


There is no priest class, the cleric is the closest thing.

There is a "priest" background, however. Acolyte. Any class can be a priest.

[Greywander]

In 5E, you cannot be unparalelled at anything.
Not quite true. An 11th level rogue has Reliable Talent, meaning they can't roll less than a 10 on any ability check that adds proficiency. Combine that with Expertise, an ability score of 20, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration (from a friend, since you can't get both Peerless skill and Reliable Talent), and an Ioun Stone of Mastery, and your range of possible rolls for that ability check are 31-55. And that's not even getting into buffs you can get for specific skills (Hide in Plain Sight and Pass Without Trace each give a +10 to Stealth, as does the Boon of Undetectability, so your range goes to 61-85).

It's possible, it's just rarely worth the effort and requires you to specialize to the point that you're not that great at doing anything other than that one thing.

[Beelzebubba]

I'm pretty new to DnD, and I felt a little silly after I made this thread.
Because I immediately figured out how to get a +5 to religion, and, well, that's about as much as you can ask for, isn't it?
I think I just really wanted to make a religious freak type of character, which is why I chose the Cleric class in the first place. Guess I should have chosen a Priest instead...

Hey, we've all done that. And this sort of discussion is how I learned the game.

I come from previous editions and had to unlearn a bunch of assumptions, and threads like this one are what helped me do that.

[Unoriginal]

... provided the DM calls for checks on easy stuff that should be an automatic success, sets DCs too high, doesn't understand the automatic success with time rules, group checks, passive checks, and allows PCs to make checks to recall things they couldn't possibly have ever known. Sure.

Pretty fun how most people who bash 5e's Ability check system confirm they don't get how it works in a couple of posts, eh?

Though of course there are those who just don't like it because of their own tastes, even when they know how it works.

[Knaight]

In 5E, you cannot be unparalelled at anything. It will commonly happen that (e.g.) the dumb untrained barbarian will beat you at a religion check, or that you repeatedly fail at something that should be easy. It's all part of the game.

Except for throwing spells around or kicking people's faces in, in which case it's only a matter of time until everyone in the party has this status.

[strangebloke]

Edit: to counter my own point, most DM's get around automatic success rule for taking ten times as long rule by declaring that the "consequences for failure other than time" are that the character never knew that information if they fail a check. But that means any character should be allowed to check unless they could never have possibly learned the info.

See, that's the only thing that I require religion/arcana checks for.

Like, if you're a merc who never studied magic, how on earth would you recognize that the somatic components the spellcaster is using are going to result in a fireball? Somatic components vary between casters.

History, for me, is more about recalling very specific information. I let a player who rolled well in history remember the exact layout of a castle he had never visited in person before. So once again, if you hadn't studied history, there's no way you'd know that.

[Tanarii]

See, that's the only thing that I require religion/arcana checks for.

Like, if you're a merc who never studied magic, how on earth would you recognize that the somatic components the spellcaster is using are going to result in a fireball? Somatic components vary between casters.

History, for me, is more about recalling very specific information. I let a player who rolled well in history remember the exact layout of a castle he had never visited in person before. So once again, if you hadn't studied history, there's no way you'd know that.
Okay so it sounds to me like you're also not a fan of "state of the character's knowledge" checks to see if a PC knows a tidbit of information.

[strangebloke]

Okay so it sounds to me like you're also not a fan of "state of the character's knowledge" checks to see if a PC knows a tidbit of information.

Haha wasn't sure what you meant by that initially but I suppose not. Most stuff is like, 'you would obviously know this if you cared about this kind of thing.' Knowledge based skills are for identifying obscure monsters, spells, and ruins/other old things.

[Unoriginal]

See, that's the only thing that I require religion/arcana checks for.

Like, if you're a merc who never studied magic, how on earth would you recognize that the somatic components the spellcaster is using are going to result in a fireball? Somatic components vary between casters.

You mostly wouldn't. Identifying a spell requires a DC 15+spell level Int (Arcana) check. Assuming the DM say that there is a chance for the mercenary to know that, it's still DC 18 for that Fireball.

[strangebloke]

You mostly wouldn't. Identifying a spell requires a DC 15+spell level Int (Arcana) check. Assuming the DM say that there is a chance for the mercenary to know that, it's still DC 18 for that Fireball.

Merc with +2 int still gets it 25% of the time. Anyway, it's just an example.

[Tanarii]

Merc with +2 int still gets it 25% of the time. Anyway, it's just an example.
What kind of Merc has a +2 Int? :smallamused:

By the way, many games apparently play that Somatic components do not vary between casters, or even between one casting of a spell and another by the same caster. So to those gamers, the Xanathar's rules actually make a little bit of sense. If every Fireball everywhere in the multiverse is cast with the same V and S components, it might be somewhat common knowledge.

Personally I assume that the V and S components vary both from caster to caster, and from casting to casting for any given caster. So the DCs are too low for my tastes. Or, yknow, I can just continue to ignore the new Xanathar's rule and stick with the PHB way of spells being cast not being able to be identified at all.

[the secret fire]

... provided the DM calls for checks on easy stuff that should be an automatic success, sets DCs too high, doesn't understand the automatic success with time rules, group checks, passive checks, and allows PCs to make checks to recall things they couldn't possibly have ever known. Sure.

You make a good argument that the 5e skill system is over-dependent on DM "rulings".

[Unoriginal]

You make a good argument that the 5e skill system is over-dependent on DM "rulings".

The same way that human beings are over-dependent on air.


Also, 5e doesn't have a skill system. It's an Ability system.

[Tanarii]

You make a good argument that the 5e skill system is over-dependent on DM "rulings".
I'd rather have a system that's flexible and works well so long as the DM makes a good faith effort to understand it, and take the risk that some DMs won't make a good faith effort to understand it ... than one that is inflexible and constrains the DM, and STILL needs a good faith effort to understand it properly. Personally.


Also, 5e doesn't have a skill system. It's an Ability system.:smallbiggrin: :smallamused:

[the secret fire]

I'd rather have a system that's flexible and works well so long as the DM makes a good faith effort to understand it, and take the risk that some DMs won't make a good faith effort to understand it ... than one that is inflexible and constrains the DM, and STILL needs a good faith effort to understand it properly. Personally.

It's a byzantine system, tho...a point where 5e's talk of "empowering" DMs may mask what is simply poor game design. Simply making a "good faith" effort may not yield good outcomes for many DMs because the rules are spread out and difficult to understand, especially when you get into stuff like Stealth. And, of course, the system performs poorly at base because of the inappropriate randomness of so much turning on a 1d20 die roll.

[Tanarii]

It's a byzantine system, tho...a point where 5e's talk of "empowering" DMs may mask what is simply poor game design. Simply making a "good faith" effort may not yield good outcomes for many DMs because the rules are spread out and difficult to understand, especially when you get into stuff like Stealth. And, of course, the system performs poorly at base because of the inappropriate randomness of so much turning on a 1d20 die roll.I don't see any poor performance or inappropriate randomness, nor find them particularly difficult to understand.

OTOH I've several years experience discussing them on the forums, and my view of them has certainly shifted from the old edition thinking about skills which was messing me up. So I doubt I'm a good example in the case of 'difficult to understand'. :smallamused:

[Kurald Galain]

Also, 5e doesn't have a skill system. It's an Ability system.

And that's precisely why the OP's question, i.e. how to make a character "unparelleled" in a skill, is not possible in 5E.

Which is a shame, really. Such characters are plentiful in fiction; it would be nice to be able to play one.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And that's precisely why the OP's question, i.e. how to make a character "unparelleled" in a skill, is not possible in 5E.

Which is a shame, really. Such characters are plentiful in fiction; it would be nice to be able to play one.

It's easy to make someone unparalleled with a skill. Just not at first level. Which makes sense--apprentices aren't masters. By definition.

Rogue 10+, expertise, high modifier. Minimum check: 20+. That's automatic success on the ultra vast majority of checks.

Expertise alone gets you a +12 by level 17, which is better than someone with proficiency and a maxed modifier. So bard 2 or rogue 1 + X is an expert by any definition.

[Doug Lampert]

Are 9+ level clerics that common? And familiarity often reduces faith--instead of being the ineffable and powerful, they're Bob down the street. I have a culture that fully accepts the existence of the gods, but doesn't find them worthy/useful to worship. Of course, if you're in FR you darn well better be devout. Or it's to the Wall with you.

And, if I understand it correctly, in FR you MUST be a henothist or else. Which isn't how actual pagan cultures worked, it's some weird thing added for FR. (And probably about reason number 59 that I have no interest at all in ever playing in FR.)

[Naanomi]

And, if I understand it correctly, in FR you MUST be a henothist or else. Which isn't how actual pagan cultures worked, it's some weird thing added for FR. (And probably about reason number 59 that I have no interest at all in ever playing in FR.)
No henotheism required, though common cultural practice to have a ‘patron God’, the vast majority of races offer prayers to many Gods depending on the situation. Very few people deny the divinity or existence of other Gods even if highly dedicated to one single one... a few races do though (many sects of Lolth worship paint her as the only true God)

It is only on death that the Cosmos sort of ‘sorts you out’ to your ‘best fit’ God for the afterlife, you don’t have to make an active choice yourself (though again, culturally many do so)

You have to be a pretty active atheist or have really angered the Gods to face punishment in the afterlife for it... and even that punishment can be ‘have to work in the death filing room for eternally’; and the Wall of the Faithless sucks but isn’t eternal (your essence fade to oblivion while in the Wall, it isn’t a forever punishment... arguably better than some of the lower planes)

[greenstone]

3) talk your DM into changing Religion from being an Int related skill to a Wisdom related skill; if i'm not mistaken, it was like this in 3E, then it was changed to Int in 3.5;

That changed because the definition of WIS changed from edition to edition.

In 5E the Wisdom attribute models perception and insight, so it doesn't make sense to use it for a scholarly skill.

[Kurald Galain]

It's easy to make someone unparalleled with a skill. Just not at first level. Which makes sense--apprentices aren't masters. By definition.

Rogue 10+, expertise, high modifier. Minimum check: 20+. That's automatic success on the ultra vast majority of checks.

So only on dexterity skills, only on two classes, and only at a level higher than where most campaigns end. Those are some pretty heavy restrictions...

[Unoriginal]

So only on dexterity skills, only on two classes, and only at a level higher than where most campaigns end. Those are some pretty heavy restrictions...

We get it, you don't know anything on the subject, you don't have to show it with each of your posts.

If you want a D&D character to be the best at anything, of course you're going to need to be high level. That's true of all editions.

Also, no, you can also have high scores in non-DEX checks.


Furthermore, your condescending "only two classes" comment is pretty laughable: those two classes are the skillmonkey classes. It's normal they're the best at it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So only on dexterity skills, only on two classes, and only at a level higher than where most campaigns end. Those are some pretty heavy restrictions...

With a modifier of 0, a level 10 rogue with expertise has a minimum check of 19. Since 90% (guess, but the DMG is clear about this) of all checks are in the 10-20 range...

And that's by design, and it's good design IMO. Being an expert shouldn't be easy, and being one at low levels doesn't make sense with the design of what levels mean.