Skill improvement idea

[MadBear]

I've been considering a simple way to make skills better moving forward, and that's simply to remove them from being directly placed under certain abilities, and instead have the ability that they're added to entirely DM/Player dependent. I was reminded of this idea reading the "fixing the monk" thread where people were pointing out how useless the language feature was on a the monk. It dawned on me that there was no reason why it shouldn't be possible to have a monk persuade someone using his wisdom. Doing this would have some interesting effects that I think could improve the game. Players would have to justify why the ability score would be applicable to the check being performed (so no, you can't use your intelligence on an athletics check to run a long distance... or can you??? justify why)

Case study: Persuasion

Charisma: The player uses their charm to convince someone to do a thing
Intelligence: The player uses logic to convince someone to take an action
Wisdom: The player points out the pragmatic reasons why they should take an action
Dex/Strength/Con: Not applicable as far as I can tell, or at least not in most situations.

Case Study: Athletics
Strength: Moving something heavy
Constitution: Lasting a long time ala endurance
Intelligence: Using a tool to create a lever to help open a door

Now all of a sudden, you can have the wizard, cleric, and sorcerer trying to persuade someone using the same skill with very different means. This also means, that a DM could vary the DC depending on the character. (A pragmatic mayor might value the wisdom/intelligence approach more then the charming approach).

With this, the DM would get final say, but now there isn't a default "All stealth checks are dex", and instead it'll vary depending on the situation.

[OldTrees1]

Yes. This is a variant but it is a good one that I use by default. Just ask Charisma(Stealth) and Strength(Intimidate).

[Sorinth]

Case study: Persuasion

Charisma: The player uses their charm to convince someone to do a thing
Intelligence: The player uses logic to convince someone to take an action
Wisdom: The player points out the pragmatic reasons why they should take an action
Dex/Strength/Con: Not applicable as far as I can tell, or at least not in most situations.

I know this is a fantasy game but using logic to convince someone breaks verisimilitude

But seriously, yes it makes sense to play with that variant and encourage it by removing the defaults sounds like it would be a smart idea.

[Willowhelm]

I just posted this in another thread.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?639039-Unpopular-Opinion-Intimidation-is-fine-as-a-Cha-skill

This isn’t a variant. This is just the rules as they already are. The dmg calls out that you can use your proficiency in a SKILL as if it is relevant on an ABILITY check. I’m pretty sure there is no such thing as a “skill check” in 5e but i honestly haven’t bothered to check. They’re all “ability(skill)” checks iirc.

[OldTrees1]

I just posted this in another thread.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?639039-Unpopular-Opinion-Intimidation-is-fine-as-a-Cha-skill

This isn’t a variant. This is just the rules as they already are. The dmg calls out that you can use your proficiency in a SKILL as if it is relevant on an ABILITY check. I’m pretty sure there is no such thing as a “skill check” in 5e but i honestly haven’t bothered to check. They’re all “ability(skill)” checks iirc.

In 5E PHB there is a variant called Skills with Different Abilities. It describes how a GM could apply Athletics Proficiency to a non Strength check if Athletics was relevant.

However I did not know that at first. The default rules as they already sounded like they allow the GM to pick the ability and then pick the relevant proficiencies. Either way, I encourage GMs to call for these checks when it makes sense to do so.

[EggKookoo]

In 5E PHB there is a variant called Skills with Different Abilities. It describes how a GM could apply Athletics Proficiency to a non Strength check if Athletics was relevant.

Many DMs let the player make a case for using ability A or ability B for a particular check. I thoroughly encourage my players to think like that. It can really flavor-up a PC.

[Bjarkmundur]

An excerpt from my houserules:


When your DM prompts you for an ability check it is up to you to find a way to utilize your skill list to your advantage. He might ask you for a Dexterity check, and it’s your prerogative to ask whether the Acrobatics Skill might apply, or maybe your Stealth Skill.

And also


Proficiency is added to the roll if the attempted action is something the character is really good at. This could be applying your class, your skills or your character background to the task:

"I want to sneak past these guards by moving through the shadows. I was a burglar once and have the Stealth skill, can I add my proficiency bonus to the check?"


To better facilitate this I have an A4 printout at the Table with all the skills, their descriptions and some example uses. I also reduced the skills to just 7 skills, the rest is either "knowledge skills" or "crafting skills/tools" and have very different uses. The Design Principle was "if a skill is not useful in every single campaign ever run, then it should not be presented as a Basic Skill, but instead presented as a Campaign Specific skill only in those campaigns where it is relevant".

7 skills is plenty for generic fantasy.

I am really big on the idea that I only ask for ability checks, and the players then plead their case whether they can add their Proficiency bonus or not. Newer players do often need some prodding, and a lot of the times players simply forget to try to apply bonuses to the roll. The whole method is still work in progress. It is honestly much easier if the DM just directly asks for ability-skill combinations, but I'm going to keep trying doing it my way, at least for a little while longer.

[Psyren]

The thing about persuasion is that you can be perfectly logical or have all the facts on your side and still fail by being timid, dismissive, short, impatient, obnoxious etc. So I would personally be against this, if you want to be great at persuasion then Proficiency + Cha is the way to go.

You can still be decent / good just with proficiency, or even great at it with Expertise, even if your Cha is average or low.

[Kurt Kurageous]

An excerpt from my houserules:
When your DM prompts you for an ability check it is up to you to find a way to utilize your skill list to your advantage. He might ask you for a Dexterity check, and it’s your prerogative to ask whether the Acrobatics Skill might apply, or maybe your Stealth Skill.

DM names the ability score, players nominate a skill proficiency. If DM agrees, player gets to add proficiency bonus to ability modifier. If DM does not, player gets to add ability modifier.

Yep, pretty much the whole thing right there. Your DM lets you propose BOTH?!? DM is being lazy.

DM should have helped out by saying what you were doing. Classic is swing on a chandelier. You say you wanna, as DM I say STR, you say acrobatics, I say yes, you roll your 20. You say it should be DEX, I say, "Sorry, it's STR."

This is why skills should be a bit more disconnected from ability scores. It would also open up the ways one uses the 5e skill list without recreating the encyclopedia and ranks nightmare of 3.5.

[Bjarkmundur]

DM names the ability score, players nominate a skill proficiency. If DM agrees, player gets to add proficiency bonus to ability modifier. If DM does not, player gets to add ability modifier.

Yep, pretty much the whole thing right there. Your DM lets you propose BOTH?!? DM is being lazy.

I can add to this with another quote from me. How nice!




The only rule a player needs to learn before playing is how to declare intent:

Preceding any action, the player describes the desired outcome of his actions and his method to achieving the outcome.

Once a player has described the WHAT and HOW, the DM decides whether the action can be attempted, whether it succeeds automatically, or whether it warrants a dice roll. Before the dice are rolled there are two things a player can do to increase his chances of success: He can plead for proficiency or plead for advantage.
Proficiency is added to the roll if the attempted action is something the character is really good at. This could be applying your class, your skills or your character background to the task:

"I want to sneak past these guards by moving through the shadows. I was a burglar once and have the Subtlety skill, can I add my proficiency bonus to the check?"

Advantage is given when the situation favors one outcome more than the other:

"It is dark and raining, so the guards have trouble seeing and hearing you. You gain advantage on the roll."

If the action would fail automatically the DM is likely to give a warning before the action is attempted. If the action fails, the player suffers costs or risks associated with the roll. If the action is a success the player either accomplishes his desired outcome or makes progress towards it. Even then, the DM can apply consequences based on the player’s specific method.

So yeah, a player can declare his method and intent in such a way the DM might favor one ruling over the other, or even state a preferred ability modifier outloud, but he should not have the power to make that ruling on his own.

For example

"Using my Sherlock Holmian powers of observation, do I see any mismatches in the details of his body language and the way he's trying to present himself. I'm trying to see if he's presenting an honest version of himself, or if he's actively trying to came across as something he's not"

The DM might allow him to use Wisdom or Intelligence here, and the DM might even say "Sure, give me a Wisdom or Intelligence Ability check". The player might even ask

"Can I roll charisma?"

And the DM would rule "Nope, charisma does not match your method". The player would then plead for Proficiency.

"Uhm. What skill could I use?"

"Insight would be perfect for this"

"Hmm, I don't have insight. But I have perception, and I'm mostly looking for small ticks or hesitations in his body language"

"Sure, you can add your Proficiency bonus using Perception"

-------


Okay maybe not the best example, since we use a custom Skill list, which doesn't have perception on it. But you see how the discussion would go.

[Kane0]

Divorce skills and tools from stat entirely. Instead of stat + prof just use 2x prof, or 3x prof if you have expertise.

[Bjarkmundur]

Divorce skills and tools from stat entirely. Instead of stat + prof just use 2x prof, or 3x prof if you have expertise.


.... godammit that's a good idea. Stop messing with my games Kane0 🤣🤣🤣

[dafrca]

Divorce skills and tools from stat entirely. Instead of stat + prof just use 2x prof, or 3x prof if you have expertise.

Nice option idea. I like it. :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

Divorce skills and tools from stat entirely. Instead of stat + prof just use 2x prof, or 3x prof if you have expertise.

So two folks with proficiency in Athletics/Acrobatics should perform the same regardless of their physical attributes? Why have attributes at all then :smallconfused:

[Waterdeep Merch]

So two folks with proficiency in Athletics/Acrobatics should perform the same regardless of their physical attributes? Why have attributes at all then :smallconfused:

Perhaps work it backwards? Instead of using proficiency, use the stat modifier and multiply that out if proficient/have expertise, minimum of 1 if proficient (2 if expertise'd). Then remove all the skills and tools and work off of a verb/adjective system. You multiply out your stat if you're running, or hiding, or sneaking, or building, or remembering, or whatever else. Then you could have nouns, things that you're good at or knowledgeable in. If you have a verb/adjective or a noun that could apply, you get to multiply out the stat that best applies. If you have both a verb/adjective and a relevant noun, you get expertise if you didn't have it already.

This is pretty similar to how a few other TTRPG systems work. Namely Numenera (I think? It's been a while).

[Kane0]

So two folks with proficiency in Athletics/Acrobatics should perform the same regardless of their physical attributes? Why have attributes at all then :smallconfused:

Why indeed.

[EggKookoo]

Why indeed.

Because then you can do Strength (Intimidation) while I do Charisma (Intimidation).

I mean sure, you can abstract it out with your approach. We both do Intimidation (PB x whatever) and narrate it as using physical prowess or force of personality. But too much abstraction can make a system feel unanchored to reality.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Because then you can do Strength (Intimidation) while I do Charisma (Intimidation).

I mean sure, you can abstract it out with your approach. We both do Intimidation (PB x whatever) and narrate it as using physical prowess or force of personality. But too much abstraction can make a system feel unanchored to reality.

I agree. Versatility and depth are offered at the expense of a more complicated system. The real art is in offering the greatest amount of versatility and depth at the lowest levels of complexity possible, and recognizing when complexity is offering too little (or even none, or even negative!) versatility and depth. Attributes can be very helpful in this regard and would rather have them, but it pays to scrutinize them properly; extrapolate when necessary, and streamline where possible. If we're going to have six of them, each one should allow for the best depth that they can afford. Otherwise, why not three? Or even none?

[Psyren]

Why indeed.

I mean, if you want to remove ability scores at your table that's fine, though personally I think it might be easier to just play a game system that doesn't use them at that point.


Perhaps work it backwards? Instead of using proficiency, use the stat modifier and multiply that out if proficient/have expertise, minimum of 1 if proficient (2 if expertise'd). Then remove all the skills and tools and work off of a verb/adjective system. You multiply out your stat if you're running, or hiding, or sneaking, or building, or remembering, or whatever else. Then you could have nouns, things that you're good at or knowledgeable in. If you have a verb/adjective or a noun that could apply, you get to multiply out the stat that best applies. If you have both a verb/adjective and a relevant noun, you get expertise if you didn't have it already.

This is pretty similar to how a few other TTRPG systems work. Namely Numenera (I think? It's been a while).

Without skill names, how do you track what you're proficient/expert in? Seems to me that the existing skill names are broad enough for that already.

I can understand divorcing them from specific ability scores if that's what you're after. I wouldn't do it personally (see my reasons above under the Persuasion example) but it sounds like others would.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Without skill names, how do you track what you're proficient/expert in? Seems to me that the existing skill names are broad enough for that already.

I can understand divorcing them from specific ability scores if that's what you're after. I wouldn't do it personally (see my reasons above under the Persuasion example) but it sounds like others would.

It's a very different skill system from the way D&D has ever worked, but in other games? It's up to players to justify to their GM why their bonus works. "I'm good at sneaking. So, I'm going to be sneaky in this conversation and avoid answering the goblin king's questions." Or, "I'm stubborn, so I stubbornly refuse to budge when the giant tries to knock me off my feet."

Sometimes these systems ask you to be moderately specific, and sometimes they grant better bonuses when you use more specific words. As an example, if you were to apply this to combat in place of proficiencies as well, you might get your standard bonuses if you've got "fighting" as a word, but you'd get expertise when using swords if your word was instead "swordfighting", since it's naturally a much more specific thing.

It can be hard to wrap your head around if you've never played these systems, but it's actually very easy to use in play. I'm not entirely sure about using it in D&D, but the math seems to work okay without too much hassle if you want more narrative control/creativity in approach.

[MoiMagnus]

Perhaps work it backwards? Instead of using proficiency, use the stat modifier and multiply that out if proficient/have expertise, minimum of 1 if proficient (2 if expertise'd).

My immediate though is the following:
+ If you're not proficient, you use one ability score
+ If you're proficient, you use two different ability scores and add them
+ If you're expert, you use three different ability scores and add them

However, the main problem with both your solution and mine is that the scaling with level is removed, and a level 1 character is likely to have the same bonus to skills they're proficient with than a level 20 character. (Obtaining expertise is quite difficult, and increasing your ability score quite expensive if that's not your primary ability).

[Waterdeep Merch]

My immediate though is the following:
+ If you're not proficient, you use one ability score
+ If you're proficient, you use two different ability scores and add them
+ If you're expert, you use three different ability scores and add them

However, the main problem with both your solution and mine is that the scaling with level is removed, and a level 1 character is likely to have the same bonus to skills they're proficient with than a level 20 character. (Obtaining expertise is quite difficult, and increasing your ability score quite expensive if that's not your primary ability).

This is true. Essentially, this would make the skill system quasi-static, only improving on occasion as an ancillary to improvements that may or may not be taken.

Both could still function, but the math would need to work free of the idea of level scaling entirely. It's at odds with the main D&D paradigm. Whether that's a bad thing or not is up to taste.

[Psyren]

It's a very different skill system from the way D&D has ever worked, but in other games? It's up to players to justify to their GM why their bonus works. "I'm good at sneaking. So, I'm going to be sneaky in this conversation and avoid answering the goblin king's questions." Or, "I'm stubborn, so I stubbornly refuse to budge when the giant tries to knock me off my feet."

This just sounds like FATE with extra steps?


My immediate though is the following:
+ If you're not proficient, you use one ability score
+ If you're proficient, you use two different ability scores and add them
+ If you're expert, you use three different ability scores and add them

However, the main problem with both your solution and mine is that the scaling with level is removed, and a level 1 character is likely to have the same bonus to skills they're proficient with than a level 20 character. (Obtaining expertise is quite difficult, and increasing your ability score quite expensive if that's not your primary ability).

What if penalties? Or even if your other scores are 10s, that just means the expert and the proficient guy are the same.