Removing skills from 5e

[BoutsofInsanity]

This was something that I've been mulling in my head today and wouldn't leave it alone. Let me know what you think below. I needed to write it down.

Premise
The Basic Mechanic of 5e is to roll a d20 and add an appropriate attribute modifier. Then if whatever check falls under a skill, you add your proficiency bonus to it.

But something about skills never sat right with me. They always felt too restrictive as a player and less creative as a DM, and more work. So I would like to experiment with the following house rule.

Assumption 1: The people you are playing with are polite, trustworthy, and understand the social contract of DnD.
Assumption 2: The DM is good one, has a decent grasp of the rules, and you trust him/her to not screw you over.
Assumption 3: You aren't out to deliberately break the game
Assumption 4: Failure is OK, and that disadvantages within a character make for an interesting story

On The Character Sheet you have the following Categories

Class, Background, and Experience. Under each of those categories should be listed things discussed with the GM that you character is good at, and bad at that relate to those categories. The Experience Category should be expanded as the game progresses.

Examples
Example: Bob the thieves guild enforcer!
Backstory: Bob is a fighter class, who has spent his life before adventuring cracking skulls for the local thieves guild.

Class
Good At: Physical activities, Balancing, and sizing up people for fighting
Bad At: Not much of a reader, dueling with rules and honor

History
Good At: Keeping watch for his mates, sneaking up behind a target, intimidation, and lying to the police, also he plays a mean game of cards and reading people
Bad At: Never had the patience for roof work or getting into locked locations. His fingers aren't fast enough for picking pockets after his hand was broke. He didn't pray or pay attention the rumors of magic either.
This can be expanded while working with the DM as the game progresses and the player discovers more about the character

Experience
As Bob is being created, this won't happen for several levels.

Now when the DM calls for a dice roll to see if something happens, Bob can look at his list and decide if Bob should add his proficiency bonus. He then pitches to the DM if he should do so. If this situation or a similar one comes up later, Bob can just assume he adds his proficiency.

Easier Example
DM: "You come across a hole in the tunnel and need to leap across. Please roll a strength check to jump across if you choose too."
Bob: "I'm a pretty fit guy, and given my previous profession and fight training, I feel that Bob should handle this with ease. Proficiency?
DM: "Absolutely. Any other jumping or basic physical abilities that come up, go ahead and add."

Harder Example
DM: "The Knight body guard to the princess stands aside as she thanks the you all for the assistance of escorting her back home."
Bob: "Given my background with long watches and guarding slippery roof walkers, I would like to empathize with the body guard talk to him about what it's like guarding a slippery princess."
DM: "Roll a charisma check but add proficiency as you have experience in such matters as boring shifts and dealing with whims of those higher in stature then you."

The Experience category comes into play as you progress and interact with those around you. For Example, Bob has spent many a time hanging out with the Ranger. As such, if he needed to identify a mushroom for safe consumption, Bob might be able to justify having half-proficiency to identifying it, as the Ranger might have told him about this mushroom before. Or if the Paladin got his hooks in, maybe Bob has begun to grasp proper decorum or religious verses.

The bonuses can be Proficiency or Half Proficiency. Depending on whether the character has a great deal of familiarity with the topic, or a passing familiarity in dealing with the topic.

Advantage comes from outside sources or class features.

Expertise becomes more focused, and story driven. But still extremely relevant.

Conclusion
I just wanted to fiddle around with something that breaks away from the regular DnD structure and add a different spin on something we have seen time and time again. And add more background and creative outlets for characters that aren't pigeonholed into what skills they chose from a list, but more into a fluid and cooperative storytelling experience.

Let me know things that feel good about the above, and things that make you want to run away. Thanks.

[greenstone]

You get proficiencies from class, race and background at the moment, and you can gain them from feats and downtime. Why is this system any different?

[Honest Tiefling]

You get proficiencies from class, race and background at the moment, and you can gain them from feats and downtime. Why is this system any different?

What he said. Basically, this system seems to replace skills with custom traits. The example you give seems to be Athletics, Acrobatics, Insight, Perception, Intimidation, Bluff, proficiency with card games and Insight again.

The beauty of the skills is that most of the time, everyone is on the same page as to what it does and it reduces time explaining or arguing about it. Even with my friends, I'd like to be able to quickly know what the skill is and is not. Sure, there's a lot of flaws, but I don't think this is one. If anything, it seems to be an argument to allow backgrounds to allow custom skills that might not be covered by the system.

If anything, this system is wonky, because many uses are too particular, vague or too broad. Good at physical things? That's really broad. That's basically combining athletics and acrobatics, two good skills, into one. I personally wouldn't allow that. Balancing? I hope he doesn't need to use other forms of acrobatics...Good at lying to guards? If that covers lying in general...Why not just call it lying?

Harder Example
DM: "The Knight body guard to the princess stands aside as she thanks the you all for the assistance of escorting her back home."
Bob: "Given my background with long watches and guarding slippery roof walkers, I would like to empathize with the body guard talk to him about what it's like guarding a slippery princess."
DM: "Roll a charisma check but add proficiency as you have experience in such matters as boring shifts and dealing with whims of those higher in stature then you."

What? I think this is a horrible example. Not only is he ignoring the princess who just expressed her gratitude, but he's comparing his time doing illegal things to a bodyguard to nobility? I think I get the jist of your example, but I'd rewrite some things, else it looks like you add your bonus to being rude to people and admitting your criminal history.

Also, the experience category bugs me. If I am a wizard, I don't want the entire party to start to become wizards. I'd like the spotlight occasionally, please. And I certainly don't want to edge in on the ranger's territory, either! This encourages players making very diverse characters, and then start copying each other's skills in case one dies. I'm not sure what the point of this is? If there was a better system for multiple characters to contribute to a single check, it'd make more sense. As is, it's a huge potential for trolling, and gives little advantage to a party unless someone dies or is out cold.

I don't agree with this system, but I think it does have value: Helping people think of characters, but not so good for actual play. The emphasis on history and character are good and if you made it a survey might really help people think of what their character is. Or heck, assign some traits with numbers, so people can roll up a character when they're stuck on what to play.

[JackPhoenix]

Check Skill Variants, DMG p. 263-264. That's pretty much what are you suggesting.

[SiCK_Boy]

The main issue with the proposed system is the lack of a defined list of items you can include in each category.

As someone mentioned, some seem pretty broad, while others are very limited.

Without a full list of what is available, and what the definition (game application) for each would be, I do not see many advantages to this system. At that point, just abandon the whole thing and let players "justify", on a case by case basis, whether or not their characters are proficient (after all, you assumed players were not out to break the system).

But as a game component, with strict rules, the current system remains superior, simply because of its clarity (compared to the proposed model).

[DanyBallon]

Using the same assumptions you can already do that with 5e, the skills are just a tool to group similar actions so it's easier to understand what you are proficient in, but the system is design to be vague enough that it can work just as you are looking for.

[Pex]

Way too much "Mother May I" for my taste. Any time my character wants to do something I'd have to ask the DM if I can add my proficiency and give testimony why I think I should.

[napoleon_in_rag]

Example: Bob the thieves guild enforcer!
Backstory: Bob is a fighter class, who has spent his life before adventuring cracking skulls for the local thieves guild.

Class
Good At: Physical activities, Balancing, and sizing up people for fighting
Bad At: Not much of a reader, dueling with rules and honor

History
Good At: Keeping watch for his mates, sneaking up behind a target, intimidation, and lying to the police, also he plays a mean game of cards and reading people
Bad At: Never had the patience for roof work or getting into locked locations. His fingers aren't fast enough for picking pockets after his hand was broke. He didn't pray or pay attention the rumors of magic either.
This can be expanded while working with the DM as the game progresses and the player discovers more about the character

Experience
As Bob is being created, this won't happen for several levels.

Harder Example
DM: "The Knight body guard to the princess stands aside as she thanks the you all for the assistance of escorting her back home."
Bob: "Given my background with long watches and guarding slippery roof walkers, I would like to empathize with the body guard talk to him about what it's like guarding a slippery princess."
DM: "Roll a charisma check but add proficiency as you have experience in such matters as boring shifts and dealing with whims of those higher in stature then you."

I don't see how Bob would get the proficiency bonus for this. Standing bodyguard for royalty is different than helping someone break into a house. There is nothing in the background that suggests Bob is good at talking to people other than intimidating people and lying to the police. The Knight is of a much higher Social Class than than a former Thief enforcer.

I think this is the problem with your system, it depends too much on the Players interpretation of the Character's background. The DM would really have to know each PCs background to make a fair decision.

Also, just because someone has "experience" doing a task doesn't mean they are "skilled" at it. Let's say Bob was an apprentice blacksmith for a month but discovered he didn't like the drudgery and so turned to a life of crime. I wouldn't give him a proficiency bonus if he wanted to smith a sword.

[Puh Laden]

I believe you're looking for FATE. It's an RPG that uses this idea and, in essence, applies it to every aspect of the game, including combat.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Check Skill Variants, DMG p. 263-264. That's pretty much what are you suggesting.

Well, that's exactly what I wanted. Thanks! Perfect! I think combining the personality and background skill systems from those pages seems perfect.

Then add a second category on things that the character is bad at as well. Thank you!

[Vaz]

Its okay. 5e already has removed skills from D&D.

[DanyBallon]

Way too much "Mother May I" for my taste. Any time my character wants to do something I'd have to ask the DM if I can add my proficiency and give testimony why I think I should.

What you see as "Mother may I" I see it as a normal interaction between players and DM

[GlenSmash!]

What you see as "Mother may I" I see it as a normal interaction between players and DM

Interesting.

My normal interaction is Players state their goal and approach to the scenario, the DM decides if it succeeds or fails or is uncertain. If it's uncertain the DM calls for a Ability check, decides which skill proficiency applies (if any) and sets a DC, then the player rolls.

[Knaight]

I believe you're looking for FATE. It's an RPG that uses this idea and, in essence, applies it to every aspect of the game, including combat.

Apart from its fairly codified skill list, sure. If anything this is closer to the various systems that replace skills with backgrounds, where you might have "Knight 5" that gives you +5 when doing knight stuff.

Said systems can work just fine, and while a unified +Prof mechanic fits them a bit weirdly there's no reason it wouldn't work in 5e, using custom backgrounds. You could also use a mechanic for closeness of fit, where you get half proficiency for a background that kind of works and double proficiency for a perfect background. Heck, I've done this before.

The one problem is that the sort of people that D&D tends to appeal to and the sort of people likely to like this sort of system are groups without a great deal of overlap. If your players are in that overlapping band though, all's good.

[DanyBallon]

Interesting.

My normal interaction is Players state their goal and approach to the scenario, the DM decides if it succeeds or fails or is uncertain. If it's uncertain the DM calls for a Ability check, decides which skill proficiency applies (if any) and sets a DC, then the player rolls.

The same for me, Player states what he is trying to do, DM decides if an ability check is needed, if needed the Player can tell the DM he think that skill A is character is proficient could apply or that circumstance X may come into play, and DM consider what the player told him and let him know if skill proficiency and/or circumstance applies (usually circumstances allow for adv/dis).

But from previous discussion with Pex, he prefers (Pex please correct me if I'm interpreting wrong) when an action is tied to a specific skill and DC, so even before needing to tell the DM what his character wants to do, he knows if his character will be able to pull it through or not.

[Easy_Lee]

5e doesn't need fewer skills. If anything it needs more. Grappling, swimming, climbing, and jumping are all separate skill sets, and that's just athletics.

Tracking what a character can do in a different way doesn't really change the system. If you want players not to attempt things their character can't do, that's more of an RP decision than a mechanical one

[DanyBallon]

5e doesn't need fewer skills. If anything it needs more. Grappling, swimming, climbing, and jumping are all separate skill sets, and that's just athletics.

Tracking what a character can do in a different way doesn't really change the system. If you want players not to attempt things their character can't do, that's more of an RP decision than a mechanical one

I don't agree, the more skill you have, the more specialized your character become, and the less options he have to do interesting stuff. That was how 3.5 handled it and unless you were proficient (and maxed out) in a skill, you wouldn't even think about trying to do something. The less skills there are, especially when they are needed to succeed, the more you see characters trying stuff out of the ordinary.

The idea behind a skill less system is not to prevent players from doing stuff, but to allow them to try unusual stuff because they have no constrain created by skills description

[pwykersotz]

5e doesn't need fewer skills. If anything it needs more. Grappling, swimming, climbing, and jumping are all separate skill sets, and that's just athletics.

Tracking what a character can do in a different way doesn't really change the system. If you want players not to attempt things their character can't do, that's more of an RP decision than a mechanical one

You can look at it more like infinite skills than less skills. "Choose a subset of life that you're awesome at. You gain proficiency in the things you're awesome at" is a pretty solid way of allowing the players flexibility and creativity in how they approach character building and encounters. It's not about gatekeeping the players away from certain checks, it's allowing them flexibility in their approaches to them. Of course any change that isn't exclusively power creep will have some form of exchange. You could previously know all history everywhere, but now you're a history buff of the seven realms and outside that you know surprisingly little. That is a perfectly fine exchange given the four assumptions in the OP.

[napoleon_in_rag]

5e doesn't need fewer skills. If anything it needs more. Grappling, swimming, climbing, and jumping are all separate skill sets, and that's just athletics.

Tracking what a character can do in a different way doesn't really change the system. If you want players not to attempt things their character can't do, that's more of an RP decision than a mechanical one

I don't know. After playing games like GURPS or 2e which had too many skills, I like the 5e skills because of their simplicity. I think the main problem is that the skills aren't balanced. Perception is a far more useful skill than Performance, for example.

[Corsair14]

The skill system in 5th is my least favorite part of it. It needs more skills and real penalties or much higher target numbers for doing things you aren't skilled at. Currently everyone can do everything with someone skilled only being a little better than a new guy. Weapon skills are just as bad with everyone knowing how to almost use everything. the old proficiency system was so much better. As someone who actually fights with weapons, using a strange weapon that is different mechanic wise than your normal weapon is difficult. I would keep simple weapons a broad category but make martial and exotic weapons individual proficiencies or place them in narrow groups(Axes, long bladed swords, short bladed weapons, hammers).

As to the OP's topic, look into 2nd edition's alternate skill system. You basically pick or roll two secondary skill sets which are based on professions and you can broadly work skills from there. For example, Blacksmith would give you knowledge on how to work metal, build fires, appraise metal work, and anything else you can argue into it. Court noble would give you etiquette, read and writing, maybe falconry and riding, area knowledge and history. We always used the primary proficiency system and directly picked our skills but back in those days if the party was lacking a skill, you were really lacking a skill.

[JackPhoenix]

Apart from its fairly codified skill list, sure. If anything this is closer to the various systems that replace skills with backgrounds, where you might have "Knight 5" that gives you +5 when doing knight stuff.

There's a system that does something like that, although it was never translated to english. Dračí Doupě 2, czech RPG. Each level of class gives bonus to abilities associated with the class. For example, fighter's abilities are "Melee combat on foot against humans and animals", "Strength" "Fighter's knowledge" and "Self-confidence", each of which covers multiple skills: Self-confidence's subcategories include bragging, intimidation and... best translation would be "praising and shaming". Each level of class also gives you a perk to select which improve base abilities or modifies their use (fighter's "Strongman" perk allows use two-handed weapons in one hand and gives advantage on some rolls requiring pure strength. The system relies heavily on multiclass, starter characters have 3 class levels, and there are advanced classes which require some combination of base classes... Warrior advanced class requires total 6 levels in Fighter and Rogue, and gives abilities concerning mounted combat, strategy and leadership.

I think the system is pretty cool and it fits nicely between rules-heavy systems like D&D and storytelling systems like FATE.

[pwykersotz]

There's a system that does something like that, although it was never translated to english. Dračí Doupě 2, czech RPG. Each level of class gives bonus to abilities associated with the class. For example, fighter's abilities are "Melee combat on foot against humans and animals", "Strength" "Fighter's knowledge" and "Self-confidence", each of which covers multiple skills: Self-confidence's subcategories include bragging, intimidation and... best translation would be "praising and shaming". Each level of class also gives you a perk to select which improve base abilities or modifies their use (fighter's "Strongman" perk allows use two-handed weapons in one hand and gives advantage on some rolls requiring pure strength. The system relies heavily on multiclass, starter characters have 3 class levels, and there are advanced classes which require some combination of base classes... Warrior advanced class requires total 6 levels in Fighter and Rogue, and gives abilities concerning mounted combat, strategy and leadership.

I think the system is pretty cool and it fits nicely between rules-heavy systems like D&D and storytelling systems like FATE.

That sounds pretty cool! I'm sad it wasn't translated.

[Pex]

The same for me, Player states what he is trying to do, DM decides if an ability check is needed, if needed the Player can tell the DM he think that skill A is character is proficient could apply or that circumstance X may come into play, and DM consider what the player told him and let him know if skill proficiency and/or circumstance applies (usually circumstances allow for adv/dis).

But from previous discussion with Pex, he prefers (Pex please correct me if I'm interpreting wrong) when an action is tied to a specific skill and DC, so even before needing to tell the DM what his character wants to do, he knows if his character will be able to pull it through or not.

Clarification: I'm ok with the chance of failure. What I want is control of my character's probabilities of failure. What bugs me about this system is my having to beg (my word) the DM to apply Proficiency and people who are in real life able to "fast talk" will be more successful of having the DM say yes than others rather than having codified rules to determine whether I add Proficiency or not, which 5E at least does. It's bad enough DC depends on who is DM that day. With this system the modifier to my die roll would depend on who is DM that day. Given that it's only this particular DM, it's still a tad behind me just saying "Ok DM, what does my character do next?" The DM decides everything; I'm deciding nothing.

[Easy_Lee]

So, crazy idea, but there's a way to simplify skills in 5e terms. Just convert them the rest of the way to attribute checks.

Spoiler: Simplified Checks

Show

Each character is proficient in specific kinds of activities. These activities may not always line up perfectly with your class and background. No man is good at everything unless he has a lot of experience.

At first level, choose two attributes. You are proficient with Checks using one attribute, and half-proficient with Checks using the other. For example, a traditional Fighter might choose Strength then Constitution, while a traditional Wizard might pick Intelligence then Wisdom. However, there is no need for your character to be traditional!

Skilled (Revised feat)
Choose an attribute. You become proficient with Checks that use that attribute. If you were already half-proficient, your score in that attribute also increases by one.

This system simplifies things quite a bit. It frees up the DM to ask for the attribute he thinks is appropriate, rather than relying purely on the published skills and referencing them each time a player does something unexpected.

[JackPhoenix]

So, crazy idea, but there's a way to simplify skills in 5e terms. Just convert them the rest of the way to attribute checks.

Spoiler: Simplified Checks

Show

Each character is proficient in specific kinds of activities. These activities may not always line up perfectly with your class and background. No man is good at everything unless he has a lot of experience.

At first level, choose two attributes. You are proficient with Checks using one attribute, and half-proficient with Checks using the other. For example, a traditional Fighter might choose Strength then Constitution, while a traditional Wizard might pick Intelligence then Wisdom. However, there is no need for your character to be traditional!

Skilled (Revised feat)
Choose an attribute. You become proficient with Checks that use that attribute. If you were already half-proficient, your score in that attribute also increases by one.

This system simplifies things quite a bit. It frees up the DM to ask for the attribute he thinks is appropriate, rather than relying purely on the published skills and referencing them each time a player does something unexpected.

That's one of the variants in DMG, only difference is that you allow more freedom, the DMG variant gives each class the same attribute check proficiency as their save proficiencies.

[Easy_Lee]

That's one of the variants in DMG, only difference is that you allow more freedom, the DMG variant gives each class the same attribute check proficiency as their save proficiencies.

Hah, I never saw that in the DMG, not quite as well-versed in that book. But that figures that theirs would allow less freedom.

[Tanarii]

Given that it's only this particular DM, it's still a tad behind me just saying "Ok DM, what does my character do next?" The DM decides everything; I'm deciding nothing.

Or you could just tell the DM what you want to do, and he tells you what what the outcome is, including if an ability check is needed. As normal for 5e. Technically as normal for every edition of D&D, including AD&D, 3e and 4e. They just didn't all use the term 'ability checks' for resolution checks, and the way the math was handled for resolution checks was different.

All you have to do with this system is ask (if you feel it's appropriate) if you get to add proficiency bonus because 'background proficiency'. As opposed to (in 5e) either asking if you get to add because 'skill proficiency', or the DM telling you which skill or tool proficiency applies.

[2D8HP]

Or you could just tell the DM what you want to do, and he tells you what what the outcome is, including if an ability check is needed.....

That used to be how the game was played (and is still how I'd like to play it), but now (to my annoyance) most DM's ask me "What skill/stat/mod/blah-blah are you using".

How would my PC know?

I certainly don't know what the odds are when I "attempt an action" in RL!

Time was you'd look at your character sheet to remind yourself what equipment your character carried, and all the number ciphering, 'sides remaining hit points, was what the DM handled dagnabbit!

Fooey to all this stat minding!

I want the DM to tell me what my character perceives, then I say what my character tries to do, without worrying 'bout which dang stat apples!

[DanyBallon]

Clarification: I'm ok with the chance of failure. What I want is control of my character's probabilities of failure. What bugs me about this system is my having to beg (my word) the DM to apply Proficiency and people who are in real life able to "fast talk" will be more successful of having the DM say yes than others rather than having codified rules to determine whether I add Proficiency or not, which 5E at least does. It's bad enough DC depends on who is DM that day. With this system the modifier to my die roll would depend on who is DM that day. Given that it's only this particular DM, it's still a tad behind me just saying "Ok DM, what does my character do next?" The DM decides everything; I'm deciding nothing.

Like I said, I see more like a conversation than begging for something

i.e. Generic Character 1 wants to get inside a building and there is a guard that stand in his way

Player: GC1 is looking to get inside
DM: The guard that stand next to the door won't let you in unless you show him a specific note
Player: GC1 try to persuade the guard to let him in anyway
DM: Unfortunately GC1 is not really the smooth talker that can talk is way through (DM decide that considering GC1 background and the fact that the guard may suffer dire consequence from letting someone in, GC1 is bound to fail), but as the guard turn you down, you feel that there's something odd...
Player: do my character notice something in particular?
DM: roll a Wisdom check, and if your character is either proficient in Perception or Insight, you may add your proficiency bonus to the roll (DM secretly set the DC to 10 as it's easy to notice the guard behaviour)
Player: (roll and get a total of 18)
DM: you notice that your attempts to talk your way through, the guard seems to uncomfortable and is always checking right and left as if he fear something or someone is watching.
Player: GC1 might not be the talky type, but he's definitely the terrifying one. My character try to bully the guard by having him fear me more than anything else.
DM: Great this would be a typical case of intimidation; roll a Charisma check and you can add your proficiency bonus since GC1 is proficient in Intimidation
Player: Crap, GC1's charisma is strongest ability...
DM: yeah... well in this particular case, you need to look as fearsome as you can be and your towering built will speak even more, let's make this a Constitution check and add your proficiency bonus for Intimidation (DM set DC as 20 since the guard face the same dire consequence for letting the character walk through that door)
Player: (roll 8 and get a total of 15)
DM: unfortunately even your bullying couldn't let you get through, the guard is now angry at you as he didn't appreciate to be pushed around, and you may be better looking for another way in...

While it's not a perfect example, it's how it often works with our group. Nobody feels like they are cheated by the DM or need to beg the DM permission to do something. Players express what their characters try to do, and both the players and the DM works together toward a resolution.

[Garfunion]

So, crazy idea, but there's a way to simplify skills in 5e terms. Just convert them the rest of the way to attribute checks.

Spoiler: Simplified Checks

Show

Each character is proficient in specific kinds of activities. These activities may not always line up perfectly with your class and background. No man is good at everything unless he has a lot of experience.

At first level, choose two attributes. You are proficient with Checks using one attribute, and half-proficient with Checks using the other. For example, a traditional Fighter might choose Strength then Constitution, while a traditional Wizard might pick Intelligence then Wisdom. However, there is no need for your character to be traditional!

Skilled (Revised feat)
Choose an attribute. You become proficient with Checks that use that attribute. If you were already half-proficient, your score in that attribute also increases by one.

This system simplifies things quite a bit. It frees up the DM to ask for the attribute he thinks is appropriate, rather than relying purely on the published skills and referencing them each time a player does something unexpected.

How would a rogue's expertise work? Because I kind a like the idea of full and 1/2 proficiencies on ability checks.