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

[FrogReaver]

Our games normally decouple skills and abilities. The player describes what their character does and how the character does it. This narrative description determines which ability and which skill proficiency apply, if any. The description might also modify the Difficulty Class rating. Some descriptions seem like they would automatically work, gain a bonus, transpire as a typical challenge, incur a disadvantage, or be virtually impossible.

That isn't decoupling skills and abilities. It's instead decoupling a single specific ability from a skill. You still have abilities coupled with skills, just not to a specific ability. I use that variant and it helps but not completely. If it could make a very persuasive fighter that's an amazing history buff and very good at fighting we might be onto something... I mean as cool as it is to mix and match stats and skills together, it really doesn't solve the problem that so many concepts are still unobtainable..

If 5e made it possible to use multiple abilities and multiple skills toward an endeavor, I would do it that way.

I'm not sure what this would look like?

 

[FrogReaver]

I know you said you wanted to decouple, but it would be far easier to allow the player any choice of "reasonable" stat to work with the skill (and is even in the dmg as an option).

So for example, using your strength to intimidate.
Using Intelligence would work with almost any skill : Social skills represents a solid logical argument, physical skills represent knowing the best techniques and training.
Warlocks or bards using Charisma with Arcana as its their innate aspect of magic, similarly clerics and druid could use Wisdom as they observe the phenomena thru their deity.
Wisdom could be used in social situations as you determine the what will resonate with your audience,in physical skills it could notice a flaw that could be exploited.
Con can work for physical skills in situations in which you could just keep at a problem, maybe even intimidate if con represents your stature in some manner.
Charisma in any physical conflict (like athletics trying to grab or shove someone) would work as your actions may make them hesitate, or even against inanimate objects as it might represent your self confidence (which is proven to help in almost any situation).

This allows all players to be Good at whatever they are proficient at, and Not-Terrible at other skills. Without rewriting the book.

Doesn't this proposal basically boil down to using your highest ability score for most every skill check? Except maybe fighters and rogues are restricted from using str and dex for almost anything else while all the mental stats basically boost everything?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Feats are terrible solutions to system problems. Please don't feat-tax me just because the system failed to be able to deliver a realistic character. A feat tax (which just puts me further behind at whatever else I could have used that feat on) just to play a realistic character is just ill-conceived.

Yes, but your system skill taxes just as badly -- if I'm playing a strong character, I have to spend my skill points on athletics just to hit my concept. And, if you read the feat, it has a no cost option at character creation so you aren't behind at all and can go "off stat."

Almost like I saw that complaint coming...

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, but your system skill traces just as badly -- if I'm playing a strong character, I have to spend my skill points on athletics just to hit my concept. And, if you read the feat, it has a no cost option at character creation so you aren't behind at all and can go "off stat."

Almost like I saw that complaint coming...

Not really IMO but as to the level 1 version: you made an ability that applies to everyone globally. It helps a character concept that requires 1 good offstat skill that it would normally struggle to get. It's a straight up boost to any character that doesn't require that but will take it because it's there. A character that wants 2 good off stat skills will be in the same boat as before. Basically you just pushed the problem a little further away. I will take it in absence of anything else but it's not a full fledged solution.

In my proposed system, if you are having to spend skill points in order to reach your character concept then it's working IMO. Your concept should require investment in a few skills to make it come to life. If athletics is what your concept requires then you aren't losing anything by putting your skill points there. That said I wouldn't be opposed to classes having a few skill points always allocated in what might be considered their classes defining skill so that they are never "bad at that". So fighters would always have a skill point or 2 already in athletics that can't be removed. A ranger would have 1-2 in survival. A rogue would have 1-2 in stealth and maybe sleight of hand. A Wizard would have 1-2 in arcana. A cleric would have 1-2 in religion, etc.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Using Intelligence would work with almost any skill : Social skills represents a solid logical argument, physical skills represent knowing the best techniques and training.

How often have you seen a solid logical argument win hearts and minds?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Feats are terrible solutions to system problems. Please don't feat-tax me just because the system failed to be able to deliver a realistic character. A feat tax (which just puts me further behind at whatever else I could have used that feat on) just to play a realistic character is just ill-conceived.

The purpose of feats is to expand the possibilities for your character. I don't know what you think feats are for, if you think that any feat which facilitates a character concept is a "feat tax" and bad and wrong. Because, especially in 5E, that's most of the feats. Wanna be a linguist? Take Linguist. Wanna be lucky? Take Lucky. I don't think you have any intention of saying that Lucky is a feat tax and that the system should instead provide some intrinsic method of creating more or less fortunate characters. But I don't see any qualitative difference between that and what you're saying about [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]'s Savant (which, for the record, I think is a damn elegant feat and a worthy addition to any house-rule collection).

 

[Yaarel]

That isn't decoupling skills and abilities. It's instead decoupling a single specific ability from a skill. You still have abilities coupled with skills, just not to a specific ability. I use that variant and it helps but not completely. If it could make a very persuasive fighter that's an amazing history buff and very good at fighting we might be onto something... I mean as cool as it is to mix and match stats and skills together, it really doesn't solve the problem that so many concepts are still unobtainable.

I like using abilities for skill checks. They represent ‘aptitudes’, talents that a character tends to be good at, even without training.

I'm not sure what this would look like?

So far, using multiple abilities or skills for a single endeavor hasnt worked well so far in D&D. But the Cortex system is built around this.

 

[Yaarel]

So far, using multiple abilities or skills for a single endeavor hasnt worked well so far in D&D. But the Cortex system is built around this.

One way to borrow from Cortex. Maybe translate all bonuses into dice. So for example, a Strength +3 becomes a d4 (average +2.5). Then roll all the bonuses that might apply, and use the single highest result. It seems a bit cumbersome, but might be interesting.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not really IMO but as to the level 1 version: you made an ability that applies to everyone globally. It helps a character concept that requires 1 good offstat skill that it would normally struggle to get. It's a straight up boost to any character that doesn't require that but will take it because it's there. A character that wants 2 good off stat skills will be in the same boat as before. Basically you just pushed the problem a little further away. I will take it in absence of anything else but it's not a full fledged solution.

In my proposed system, if you are having to spend skill points in order to reach your character concept then it's working IMO. Your concept should require investment in a few skills to make it come to life. If athletics is what your concept requires then you aren't losing anything by putting your skill points there. That said I wouldn't be opposed to classes having a few skill points always allocated in what might be considered their classes defining skill so that they are never "bad at that". So fighters would always have a skill point or 2 already in athletics that can't be removed. A ranger would have 1-2 in survival. A rogue would have 1-2 in stealth and maybe sleight of hand. A Wizard would have 1-2 in arcana. A cleric would have 1-2 in religion, etc.

We're right back to the problems you're complaining about to begin with: stats and skills. If I pick a high STR, under your system I MUST invest in athletics to reflect this STR or I end up with a strong character that has a 50/50 chance of beating a weakling (very low STR) adversary in wrestling. You say this is good, because it requires investment in concept. Okay, but doesn't that argument work against you as well: if you want to be good in a skill associated with a particular stat, shouldn't you then have to invest in that stat to reflect your character concept?

You can't have that both ways, man. If required expenditures in your system are investments, then they're investments in the standard model as well.

However, this might work better with a concrete example. What's a specific character concept you want to make that is being hampered by the standard method that would be achievable with your method?

 

[Ovinomancer]

How often have you seen a solid logical argument win hearts and minds?

I'm an engineer, so... sometimes? Yes, that's a bit of a sad commentary.

The purpose of feats is to expand the possibilities for your character. I don't know what you think feats are for, if you think that any feat which facilitates a character concept is a "feat tax" and bad and wrong. Because, especially in 5E, that's most of the feats. Wanna be a linguist? Take Linguist. Wanna be lucky? Take Lucky. I don't think you have any intention of saying that Lucky is a feat tax and that the system should instead provide some intrinsic method of creating more or less fortunate characters. But I don't see any qualitative difference between that and what you're saying about [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]'s Savant (which, for the record, I think is a damn elegant feat and a worthy addition to any house-rule collection).

Thanks! I think [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION]'s comment about it being a freebie everyone would take cuts against it, though, and fairly. I think it might work better if the special required picking the feat in place of a skill you'd normally get from your background or class (not race, though).