D&D 5E I want skills decoupled from stats. Suggestions?

[Tony Vargas]

How does one best decouple skills from stats in 5e?

Well there's the Storyteller/D&DNextPlaytest method: have proficiency in some skills, have some stats, when the DM calls for a check, instead of naming stat or a skill he'll quote you stat & skill, and you roll that combination.

Could probably eliminate some skills that way, too, like you wouldn't need Acrobatics, just call for DEX + Athletics.

My current thought is keeping stats for combat and special ability purposes but eliminating the stat bonus to skills. Proficiency to skills would be handled the same.

That doesn't make oodles of sense. Lots of 'skills' (all 5e skills) represent things you could try trained or not, and to which some stat would probably reasonably apply. (5e uses Tool proficiency for 'trained only skills,' in essence.)

 

[Satyrn]

Why do I get the feeling that no one is listening to me.

We're nearly 30 posts into the thread. Of course no one's listening to you anymore

I didn't mention it earlier, but the only thing that really still needs to be figured out as far as I can see about your original proposal is what you originally mentioned: how many skill points do you hand out?

(I personally don't like skill points, which is why I offered up the tiers idea as alternative. But whatever )

I just thought of a decent way to decide on how many points to start with. Imagine a player chose to make a character who was equally good at all skill. Would you prefer him to have +0, +1 or +2 in all skills*. Then give out the number of points that would allow that. See how that works out in mocking up characters.


*or maybe you realise that you'd prefer a player trying this to wind up with +1 in half the skills and +2 in the other half. The point is, I'm thinking if start with what you'd want the average to look like you can find a good answer.

 

[Blue]

B) I recommend an array of bonuses, rather than points (slots). Points are very fiddly, and can slow character creation. In contrast, using an array, players can even start without the whole array filled out and choose the remainders in play.

Agreed. Plus in reality players will likely keep their "main" skills as maxed as possible.

Instead of individual skill points, I suggest the following:

Drop all DCs by 5. This is the equivalent of a 20 score modifier that characters will eventually get. (But stay with me...)

An skill you are not proficient in and is not on your class is is "unfamiliar". These have disadvantage. (So DC is 5 easier but you have disadvantage - about the same for 50/50 shots as a +0 ability modifier).

Everything else as is. Skills on your class list end up either being proficient or not, but you're not rolling with disadvantage so the DC drop makes up for the lack of ability score.

So you're degrees of gradation are:

• Unfamiliar [Disadavantage]
• Unproficient
• Proficient [+ prof]
• Expertise [+ 2x prof]

That should give enough individual variation with minimal bookkeeping and keeping expectatios as even as possible.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Proficiency stays the same in my proposal. Stat bonus is replaced by skill points. You still get +6 proficiency and +5 from skill points if you want. That's the same total as you can max out in the game now.

What do skill points represent as opposed to what proficiency represents? To me, it looks like you're stacking two different mechanics on top of each other to represent the same thing. Like if a character had a movement speed and also got extra "walk points" on top of it. I'd focus on trying to turn these two mechanics into one somehow.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well there's the Storyteller/D&DNextPlaytest method: have proficiency in some skills, have some stats, when the DM calls for a check, instead of naming stat or a skill he'll quote you stat & skill, and you roll that combination.

Could probably eliminate some skills that way, too, like you wouldn't need Acrobatics, just call for DEX + Athletics.

That doesn't make oodles of sense. Lots of 'skills' (all 5e skills) represent things you could try trained or not, and to which some stat would probably reasonably apply. (5e uses Tool proficiency for 'trained only skills,' in essence.)

In this proposed system proficiency still represents training and remains the same as current 5e. Skill points would represent your natural aptitude for the thing in question. I'm not seeing how that makes less sense than the current system. Keep in mind all systems are going to break apart somewhere.

I've been mixing skills and stats when calling for checks for a while. It helps. I'd be surprised if anyone doesn't do that. But that doesn't solve my issues with character creation flexibility present in the current 5e system.

 

[FrogReaver]

What do skill points represent as opposed to what proficiency represents? To me, it looks like you're stacking two different mechanics on top of each other to represent the same thing. Like if a character had a movement speed and also got extra "walk points" on top of it. I'd focus on trying to turn these two mechanics into one somehow.

Skill points in my proposal would be your natural aptitude. Call them something else if you want. Aptitude points?

I could consider doing that if I was making a system from scratch. Modifying a system is a bit different from creating from scratch. It's harder and more restrictive in a lot of ways. I feel proficiencies in 5e touch too many things to flat out remove (at least easily). Expertise, racial proficiency bonus, class proficiency bonus, background proficiency bonus. The skilled feat. Warlock invocations. The stat bonus portion of skills can be removed because very few things interact with that part. But the proficiency bonus, there's a lot of moving parts that interact with it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Skill points would represent your natural aptitude for the thing in question. I'm not seeing how that makes less sense than the current system.

Some skills, or at least tasks you do with a skill, clearly point to a stat making you better at them. It doesn't make a lot of sense for an 18 DEX character to suck at balancing or an 8 DEX character to be naturally good at it, for instance.

Maybe you could use an aptitude-point system like that to let characters customize their bonus with a skill, by adjusting it up or down from the 'dominant' stat bonus? So if you're a 16 DEX character who's not so good at balancing and other agility tasks, but is particularly good at fine-motor tasks, he might be able to accept a -2 to balancing and get a +2 when picking a pocket (or a lock)?

I've been mixing skills and stats when calling for checks for a while. It helps.

OK, good.

But that doesn't solve my issues with character creation flexibility present in the current 5e system.

That is a deeper issue.

 

[FrogReaver]

Agreed. Plus in reality players will likely keep their "main" skills as maxed as possible.

Instead of individual skill points, I suggest the following:

Drop all DCs by 5. This is the equivalent of a 20 score modifier that characters will eventually get. (But stay with me...)

An skill you are not proficient in and is not on your class is is "unfamiliar". These have disadvantage. (So DC is 5 easier but you have disadvantage - about the same for 50/50 shots as a +0 ability modifier).

Everything else as is. Skills on your class list end up either being proficient or not, but you're not rolling with disadvantage so the DC drop makes up for the lack of ability score.

So you're degrees of gradation are:

• Unfamiliar [Disadavantage]
• Unproficient
• Proficient [+ prof]
• Expertise [+ 2x prof]

That should give enough individual variation with minimal bookkeeping and keeping expectatios as even as possible.

I'll have to think on it some more but initially I think I like this proposal. I think I'd change the names a little but overall I think it could work.

I would probably modify it to be something like:

Unproficient [same as now]
Proficiency [same as now]
Proficiency+ [double proficiency ]
Proficiency++ [triple proficiency]

The DC would stay the same as now.

Only difference is proficiency from race/class/background/level 1 skill proficiencys (you get these for not getting stat bonuses to skills) can be applied 2 times and expertise is the only way to get the third time. I like the concept overall. I think it achieves pretty much all my goals. It has a few nice side effects IMO. It seems flexible enough on first glance. Overall I like it.

I still don't see why everyone is saying allocating skill points as I proposed would be that much harder and more complex than the stat point buy already used by many to generate stats. I can't imagine it would add any more complexity than stat point buy does. I mean if you don't like point buy because it's to complex maybe. But I've never heard anyone complain that the reason they don't like point buy is it's complexity lol.

So I guess I want to ask, why do so many think a skill point buy would be overly complex and take too long?

 

[FrogReaver]

Some skills, or at least tasks you do with a skill, clearly point to a stat making you better at them. It doesn't make a lot of sense for an 18 DEX character to suck at balancing or an 8 DEX character to be naturally good at it, for instance.

Maybe you could use an aptitude-point system like that to let characters customize their bonus with a skill, by adjusting it up or down from the 'dominant' stat bonus? So if you're a 16 DEX character who's not so good at balancing and other agility tasks, but is particularly good at fine-motor tasks, he might be able to accept a -2 to balancing and get a +2 when picking a pocket (or a lock)?

OK, good.

That is a deeper issue.

For every example you can give where my proposed system could be used to make something that doesn't make sense, I can give an example of the current system not allowing you to make something that makes sense. There's no getting it just right but I'd rather side of the flexibile side for skills even if that means some concepts can be created that don't make sense as opposed to the more strict side that may only allow combinations that make sense but achieves this at the expense of not allowing many concepts that do make sense.

I don't think it's a deep issue. It's just an issue of tradeoffs. Do you want more flexibility even if that flexibility can be used to occasionally make things that don't make sense or do you want flexibility restricted to such a degree that only sensible concepts can be achieved even if it greatly limits the number of sensible concepts you can achieve. That's the only issue. It's a classic tradeoff. The only way I know of to solve everything is to make such a complex mess of a system that no one would want to play it. (Another tradeoff). You can have 2 of the 3 things but never the third

 

[Mercule]

I think it's better if there's some room for middle ground instead of the all or nothing nature proficiency alone would give to skills.

I'm just homing in on this one line. I think I've caught all your goals. Sorry, if not. Here's my thought:

Constraints:
* Still needs to work with bounded accuracy
* That means proficiency bonus + something on par with stats
* Try not to keep this as a plug-and-play module instead of rewriting a bunch of other stuff
* Personal preference: Skill points in 3E would be a step backwards. Avoid those. YMMV.

With those in mind, here's some implementation ideas:
* Group skills into a handful of categories: Social (intimidate, persuasion, intuition, deception, etc.), exploration (survival, investigation, animal handling), knowledge (history, religion, nature, medicine), cunning (stealth, sleight of hand, perception), and physical (acrobatics, athletics).
* Each class has "Affinities" for certain categories. Some classes may have "minor Affinities" in a category.
* Rogue might get Affinity with Cunning and Physical, with minor Affinity for Social. (Or pick two of the three for full Affinity and the third is Minor.)
* Rangers might get Affinity with Physical and Exploration, with minor in Cunning
* For single-classed characters, an Affinity essentially adds a bonus equal to the Proficiency bonus. Minor Affinity grants half this value. (Design note: this should be roughly in line with the primary and secondary ability score bonuses, math-wise. At least enough to be balanced and decoupled.)
* For multi-class characters, we treat it a little like multi-classed casters:
* Create an Affinity table that pretty much looks exactly like the Proficiency bonus advancement.
* Classes with Affinity add their levels together to determine the character's Affinity bonus.
* Classes with Minor Affinity add half their level to determine Affinity bonus.
* Classes with no Affinity don't count.

Design note: Why use categories? Because not doing so would be redundant with selecting proficiencies. By grouping them into categories, characters can have an affinity for something in which they're essentially untrained. This allows for greater variation in characters.

Alternate system for avoiding categories:
* All classes grant affinity for all skills listed as options for Proficiency.
* It may be appropriate to refine this list into full and Minor Affinities, potentially expanding the circle of skills.