D&D 5E Skills in 5E. Do we want them?

[Stormonu]

I don't think I'd enjoy playing without some sort of skill system, and my preferred would be pretty much like how Pathfinder handles it.

It would be nice to see options though, in the core book

1) Your character knows what you know [OD&D/1E/BECMI]
2) Roll vs. Ability Score [1E/BECMI]
3) Secondary Skills/Fixed skills [1E]
4) Proficiency system (sort of a combo of 2 & 3) [2E's method]
5) Skills with skill points

Of course, to put all these options in the book and not have it take up too much space so that those who don't use an option don't feel cheated, you'd probably have to simply the explanations of 4 & 5 dramatically (which I don't think would be a bad thing)

Such as:

Option #4

"You character gains X proficiencies every Y levels. You can spend these proficiencies to gain a knowledge in a limited area of expertise."

"If the area is very narrow or specialized (Knots, for example), it would be associated with an ability score with a +2 bonus."

"Most skills cover a general talent over one area of expertise (Climb or Stealth, for example). Such talents would be associated with an ability score with no modifier."

"Some skills might equate to a profession (such as Sailor). Such broad talents cover a variety of lesser skills uses and would be associated with an ability score check at a -2 penalty."

Option #5

"Your character gains X number of skill points for each level. If you select a skill associated with your class as shown below, you gain a +3 bonus to skill roll."

"Fighter: Athletics, Craft, Knowledge (Heraldry, Strategy, Monster Lore), Intimidate [only listing one class for brevity sake]"

"Skills:"

"Acrobatics: Used for jumping, running, pole vaulting and other physical activities."

"Stealth: Used for hiding, moving about silently or for palming small objects easily fit in the hand." [abbreviating list for brevity's sake]

If there's space for option 5, list some sample DCs, otherwise leave them out. Folks can then either look up DC's from their favorite version, make them up use the ones listed in 5E adventures and such.

 

[Tallifer]

It would be nice to see options though, in the core book

1) Your character knows what you know [OD&D/1E/BECMI]

I experienced this in the early 1980s. Players trying to leverage their knowledge in chemistry, physics or forensics. Players trying to invent things centuries before using the materials at hand plus some magic.

Very creative but it all left a definite distaste in my mouth as a lover of history, fantasy and literature. I suppose though that there is a certain type of player who likes to play a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Furthermore anyone would be hardpressed to play a man with exactly the mindframe and weltanschauung of the middle ages or Middle Earth or Dark Sun.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I wouldn't mind a simpler system. I think a system like 4e, but without constantly increasing skills by going up levels.

Also, I think I'd like to remove the social skills. After a long time considering this, I really found it better when people had to role play social situations rather than make skill checks for them.

In 2e, even the people who were bad at acting at least TRIED to roleplay out a situation. Once we started playing 3e, I started getting situations like:

King: "I cannot lend you my army, I need it to protect the kingdom, you'll need to find some other way to stop the rampaging orcs."

Players would say "Come ON!" and rolling a dice. Getting a 34 in Diplomacy, everyone laughing and then expecting the King to change his mind when all they said was "Come ON!"

 

[Elf Witch]

I wouldn't mind a simpler system. I think a system like 4e, but without constantly increasing skills by going up levels.

Also, I think I'd like to remove the social skills. After a long time considering this, I really found it better when people had to role play social situations rather than make skill checks for them.

In 2e, even the people who were bad at acting at least TRIED to roleplay out a situation. Once we started playing 3e, I started getting situations like:

King: "I cannot lend you my army, I need it to protect the kingdom, you'll need to find some other way to stop the rampaging orcs."

Players would say "Come ON!" and rolling a dice. Getting a 34 in Diplomacy, everyone laughing and then expecting the King to change his mind when all they said was "Come ON!"

As I said before without some kind of mechanic to help people who are not good talkers how do you handle it. He gives his horrible speech and you hand wave it away and let it succeed.

I have a good friend who loves the idea of playing a bard or swashbuckler type character he tried it once and failed in the older editions because he would get tongue tied and his character became ineffective. With the skill check he now plays them more often.

I myself suffer from aphasia from a major stoke and sometimes my brain starts farting and I can't get out what I am trying to say. If there was not a skill role I would never even try and play a character that uses bluff or diplomacy.

The game is supposed to allow us to play fantasy characters unhampered by real life restraints. Should my friend who only has no use of one arm and the other is very weak not be allowed to play a fighter because in real life he can't swing a weapon?

It is very easy to get around the I roll my dice issue. Ask them what do you say and after they say it have them roll the dice giving bonuses and minuses on how well or how badly they do. If all someone said in my game was come on to get the king to give them help they would face major penalties on the roll.

My DM does this he also has noticed that when I am having issues he will ask do you just want to roll.

 

[Quickleaf]

I voted "something else" because I want ALL of the different approaches to skills to be accommodated. Make skills modular so they work fine in broad strokes or in deep granularity, depending on what each player likes. There really is nothing to lose with modularity (in the case of skills).

 

[howandwhy99]

I voted no skills, but I have a strong premonition this won't be the case in any option.

IIRC the 6 Ability scores were being bandied about as the basic 6 skills for bonuses and check DCs. I think that will be central to the initial game.

 

[Mircoles]

I like how skills are handled in 4e. You no longer have to worry about the Pc's not having the appropriate skill for the encounter.

Skill based systems tend to annoy me now.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I think Skills should remain essentially as they are in 4th Edition. What I would try to change though is I would like them to tweak the skill challnge system. I love the concept, but the implementation is just a bit lacking.

- We need a much clearer suggestions for what should happen on a failed check, and a better reward for a successful challenge.

- We need suggestions for ways to engage every player at the table instead of the 1 or 2 who just happen to have maxed skills suitable to the challenge;

- We need better isolation of Utility powers for combat from Utility powers for noncombat; Right now almost no one will take a skill oriented utility power unless it has a clear combat application. The original intent was to prevent the 'I have no more Fireball memorized but I have 3 spells for Water breathing memorized', and to an extent they have kind of failed that.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

As I said before without some kind of mechanic to help people who are not good talkers how do you handle it. He gives his horrible speech and you hand wave it away and let it succeed.

Yeah, if someone has a high charisma, that's likely what I'd do. If they were dead set on playing a high charisma person but were bad at roleplaying. I'd make allowances for people who just CAN'T roleplay for some reason.

I know the reason the social skills exist. And I was 100% in favor of them back when 3e came out. However, over time they have encouraged lazy behavior on the parts of players.

I want uncharismatic players who want to play charismatic PCs. But I think the disadvantages that came with the skill check mechanics are too large a price to pay for that ability.

It is very easy to get around the I roll my dice issue. Ask them what do you say and after they say it have them roll the dice giving bonuses and minuses on how well or how badly they do. If all someone said in my game was come on to get the king to give them help they would face major penalties on the roll.

And this is my major problem with trying to use the skill mechanics for social skills. I ask people what they say. They say "I convince him to help us". I say "How?" They say "I don't know, I say something convincing, I have +20 to diplomacy, so I'm very convincing".

So, here I have a couple of choices:

-Give him a penalty for not roleplaying out the scene or even giving me any reasons why the person should help them, even if said in a non-roleplaying way.

-Don't give him a penalty because he didn't roleplay poorly and just accept the roll at face value.

But given the reason for allowing skill checks in the first place is to allow people who are bad at acting or can't act out their check for some reason to still play a charismatic character...isn't it counter productive to then give them a penalty to their rolls for not acting out their roll?

And how big of a penalty do I give them if I'm giving them one? This one is edition dependent, but in 4e, if I give a 1st level character -5, I'm removing the entire bonus they get from training, possibly making their character no longer the best at diplomacy. If the party has a choice between allowing the person who is bad at roleplaying to make a roll at -5 or allow the person who is good at roleplaying to roll at even odds or even a bonus for good roleplaying, it might be a better idea for them to choose the better roleplayer with modifiers, once again putting the poor roleplayer in a position of "not being able to play the charismatic character". If the penalty is too big, you are basically ignoring the results of the dice and deciding based on roleplaying anyways.

If you give out a -2, then the penalty probably doesn't matter. If a penalty doesn't matter, then why bother giving it out?

And when it comes down to that, I normally decide not to give out modifiers for poor OR good roleplaying. Which, comes down to no one even trying to roleplay, because there's just no reason to try.

 

[Stormonu]

I'm for skills for social settings, for many of the same reasons noted above. I've had several wallflower players who have benefitted from these rules, allowing them to play characters they've always dreamed of being, but can't for one reason or another in real life.

At the same time, I do think social skills should have some of the limits that combat attacks do. Bad tactics are bad tactics and yelling "I hit him with my sword" only gets you so far. The players and the DM have to work together to create the narrative; it isn't all the player's job nor the DM's, but they can help each other.

Likewise, I'm not in favor of the one-roll-converts-him-to-my-side mechanic. You want to convince the baron to help you? You need a number of successes, the players aren't the only static actors (what's that? The baron's Vizier has a +20 to Diplomacy as well and is arguing against the players?) and all the checks aren't straight-up Diplomacy checks by one individual.