D20 Skill/Ability Thoughts: No more skills, just Ability Proficiency and Background

[johnbragg]

EDIT, TLDR: Skills are gone. You have Proficiency in 2-3 Abilities, based on your class, plus Proficiency based on what you should know from your Background.

******
I loved the 3rd edition skill system when it came out. And I still think it works well at the levels it was designed for.

But Pathfinder streamlined it a bit, which was good, and 5E streamlined it a lot. Which means, the next step is, can we streamline it *more*?

Strength: Athletics
Dexterity: Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Stealth
Constitution: None
Intelligence: Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, Religion
Wisdom: Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, Survival
Charisma: Deception, Intimidation, Performance, Persuasion

Notice that the 3E Strength skills (Climb, Swim, Jump) all got rolled into one "skill", Athletics. You could just call that "Applied Strength".

What if we extend that "Applied Ability" concept across the skill list. Which ones are really just straight-up using the ability to do what it does?

Start with the Charisma skill. Charisma is the ability to get people (and/or the universe) to do what you want. Except for Performance, all of the Charisma skills are a variation on that theme.

Wisdom is the ability to correctly perceive and sense the universe around you. So obviously Perception and Insight.

Intelligence is a tougher nut to crack. It represents raw intellectual power, but also relies on how much information you've previously absorbed. (EDIT: I've rethought this. The more problems you've solved or seen solved, the better your chances of solving a new problem. Just like "Strength training" means you've got a better chance to jump across the chasm or swim the raging river)

Acrobatics is straight using your Dexterity.

Strength: Athletics
Dexterity: Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Stealth
Constitution: None
Intelligence: Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, Religion
Wisdom: Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, Survival
Charisma: Deception, Intimidation, Performance, Persuasion

More later.

[johnbragg]

Oh, I forgot "Tool Proficiencies", most importantly Thieves Tools, but also alchemist kits, disguise kits, smithing, etc.

5E also narrows the gap between trained and untrained. In 3X, the difference between untrained and max ranks was Level + 3, while in 5E it's only your Proficiency bonus, which doesn't go above +4 until 13th level.

The Intelligence skills can separate into "Recall skills" (Arcana, History, Medicine, NAture) and "Problem Solving Intelligence" (Investigation). And the "Recall skills" mostly combine into "things you would have learned in books" (Arcana, History, Medicine).

"Investigation" gets used mostly for two 3X skills: Search and Disable Device.

[johnbragg]

So if we set aside "trained abilities", we have Sleight of Hand (Pick Pockets), Stealth, book learning, Knowledge-Nature, Search, Disable Device/ Remove Traps, Animal Handling (Domestic), Medicine, Survival (Wilderness), and Performance. And Thieves Tools Proficiency to pick locks.

Actually, I'm wavering on taking Investigation out of "trained Intelligence." The more puzzles you have seen or problems you've (seen) solved, the better your chances of recognizing an element of a new puzzle or solving a new problem.

What if we just gave everybody 2-3 "trained abilities" and 2-3 other skills?

Obviously, some Trained Abilities are better than others. Wisdom and Charisma would be the heavy
favorites, governing perception of the world and the ability to manipulate NPCs. 9 out of 10 players would take the ability to notice that a door was trapped over the ability to smash down that door.

Looking at the skill list, most of them arguably involve more than one skill, especially if you use Charisma as a sort of psionic luck force. Sleight of Hand and Stealth are Dexterity skills, but also rely on some target not Noticing, which seems like a Charisma (Deception) thing. Disarming a trap starts with Intelligence to figure out how the trap works, but then shifts to Dexterity to actually fiddle with the mechanism correctly. Knowledge: Nature/ Intelligence (Nature) checks really should be Wisdom to distinguish what you're seeing, and Intelligence to recall what to do with or about it. Same with Wilderness Survival or Wisdom (Survival), or Medicine.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

I've been thinking along some very similar lines recently!

I'd argue that Deception, Intimidation and Persuasion are not raw Charisma, though.

There are some very different skills required to persuade someone than there are to deceive them, or intimidate them - of course there is cross-over between the skills, but someone who is good at deception is not necessarily going to be good at intimidation.

By the way, in case it helps...
What I did in my thought experiment was a little different: I kept Deception, Intimidate and Social separate, and all as CHA skills - but I added a WIS function to Social, and used that to replace Sense Motive.
My thinking there was that being clued up socially means that you can see deception, hidden motives, emotional manoeuvring, and persuasion for what it is.
In my personal experience, having had counselling and communication skills training, I can see that the ability to recognise social skills and the ability to use social skills are strongly linked.

In practice, I plan to use this by referring to the skill as Social Wisdom and Social Charisma - you put points into just one skill, but your two different ability score drive it.

- Just thought that might be useful, since your thread title was "...thoughts".

[johnbragg]

I've been thinking along some very similar lines recently!

I'd argue that Deception, Intimidation and Persuasion are not raw Charisma, though.

There are some very different skills required to persuade someone than there are to deceive them, or intimidate them - of course there is cross-over between the skills, but someone who is good at deception is not necessarily going to be good at intimidation.

By the way, in case it helps...
What I did in my thought experiment was a little different: I kept Deception, Intimidate and Social separate, and all as CHA skills - but I added a WIS function to Social, and used that to replace Sense Motive.
My thinking there was that being clued up socially means that you can see deception, hidden motives, emotional manoeuvring, and persuasion for what it is.

...the old saying, you can't BS a BSer.

In my personal experience, having had counselling and communication skills training, I can see that the ability to recognise social skills and the ability to use social skills are strongly linked.

Training bonus.

In practice, I plan to use this by referring to the skill as Social Wisdom and Social Charisma - you put points into just one skill, but your two different ability score drive it.

- Just thought that might be useful, since your thread title was "...thoughts".

Maybe allow "Charisma trained" characters to roll Charisma instead of Wisdom? Hmmm......

[Altair_the_Vexed]

...

Maybe allow "Charisma trained" characters to roll Charisma instead of Wisdom? Hmmm......

Ah - my intent wasn't so much that. I intended to have just one skill, that is used with two different ability scores.

So that your skill and experience with social situations is modified by WIS when you're trying to detect other people's motivations, lies, etc, etc - but is modified by your CHA when you are trying to influence others.

I've recently seen it with one of the delegates on a course I just attended.
Although he was very sharp at seeing the motives in other people's behaviour, he was unfortunately a very shy and naturally quiet person, who didn't have enough force of personality to push his views.
He fully understood the lessons, and could apply them to understanding other delegates' role-plays - but not his own. He had all the skill to persuade people, but none of the raw ability to deliver it.

I don't know if that's so compatible with your plan, though...

[johnbragg]

Ah - my intent wasn't so much that. I intended to have just one skill, that is used with two different ability scores.

So that your skill and experience with social situations is modified by WIS when you're trying to detect other people's motivations, lies, etc, etc - but is modified by your CHA when you are trying to influence others.

I've recently seen it with one of the delegates on a course I just attended.
Although he was very sharp at seeing the motives in other people's behaviour, he was unfortunately a very shy and naturally quiet person, who didn't have enough force of personality to push his views.
He fully understood the lessons, and could apply them to understanding other delegates' role-plays - but not his own. He had all the skill to persuade people, but none of the raw ability to deliver it.

I don't know if that's so compatible with your plan, though...

Hmm. Either it's a Skill, separate from Ability training. In that case, you might use different abilities for different parts of the skill, and apply your training bonus to both. (Need to do something to counteract de facto Disadvantage--you're rolling twice and have to pass both halves of the check) "Tinkering" would use Wisdom to spot the trap, Intelligence to figure out how the trap works, Dexterity to fiddle with the mechanism to bypass the trap. That's 3 checks, at DC 20. On the other hand, the whole party is rolling Wisdom to spot the trap, but it's still two checks which is basically Disadvantage.

Or you stack your modifiers? Average? "Secondary ability" adds half modifier? Fiddly, don't like it.

Maybe passing the first check gives bonuses to the second check? +X? +dX? "Advantage" on the second check (reroll failure?)

EDIT: I kinda got on a train there and lost track of what you were saying. I think I'd model what you're saying as giving your friend the Ability Training bonus for Wisdom, but not Charisma. I don't think he'd have to spend an entire Skill (which are probably rare character building assets) on Detect Persusasion Techniques.

Yes, that makes your friend more likely to spot pressure-plate traps and yellow-bellied sapsuckers in the woods than he probably is, but that's a level of abstraction I'm okay with.

[johnbragg]

So we have Ability Training, and we have Skills, which are still kinda separate.

Strength: Athletics
Dexterity: Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Stealth
Constitution: None
Intelligence: Investigation Book Learning (Arcana, History, Religion) Nature
Wisdom: Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, Survival
Charisma: Deception, Intimidation, Performance, Persuasion

Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Book Learning, Nature, Animal Handling, Medicine, Survival, Performance.

A lot of that seems like "Background":

Academic gives you Book Learning.
Wilderness gives you Survival, some Nature
Country Boy/Girl/Larva gives you Animal Handling, some Nature.
Town (urchin) gives you Sleight of Hand, maybe Tinkering--your toybox was the trash heap where you played with broken clocks and bits of steampunk.
Town (rich) probably gives you Academic?
Town (middle) gives you--probably some crafting skills that 5th edition didn't really bother with because they're not very helpful to murderhobos. Which is okay I think--middling sorts don't end up adventurers--it's either your starveling orphans or your second-sons-of-the-aristocracy-who-aren't-going-to-inherit that end up in dungeons poking That-Which-Is-Not-Meant-To-Be-Poked with a point stick.

Medicine is--frankly obsolete in a setting with magical healing.
Performance is fluff for bards--they can have it for free, I think

[Bjarkmundur]

Umm....

Barbarian
"Starting at 1st level you can add your proficiency modifier to Strength and Dexterity ability checks and saving throws"

Bard
"Starting at 1st level you can add your proficiency modifier to Charisma and Dexterity ability checks and saving throws"


etc....


To be a bit more helpful, I removed nature and survival, since I a player could always argue using Perception or Knowledge instead if he lacked the appropriate proficiency.


Maybe I need a cup of coffee and wake up, I feel like I misunderstanding the thread.

[johnbragg]

Umm....

Barbarian
"Starting at 1st level you can add your proficiency modifier to Strength and Dexterity ability checks and saving throws"

Bard
"Starting at 1st level you can add your proficiency modifier to Charisma and Dexterity ability checks and saving throws"
etc....

That might be where I end up. Or I might allow the player some flexibility, selecting 2 or 3 depending on their class.

To be a bit more helpful, I removed nature and survival, since I a player could always argue using Perception or Knowledge instead if he lacked the appropriate proficiency.

I'm thinking that instead of those being defined Skills, they're things you know based on background, or not.

Technically, in 5th, every skill check is an Ability (Skill) Check.

Maybe I need to make a list of the Ability (Skill) Checks that come up for most adventurers and work the problem that way.

Maybe I need a cup of coffee and wake up, I feel like I misunderstanding the thread.

The murkiness and lack of clarity is on my end. I wrote the thread to work through the problem.

[Bjarkmundur]

Maybe I need to make a list of the Ability (Skill) Checks that come up for most adventurers and work the problem that way.

That's a clever way to do it. Take one campaign where "There are no skills, and your are proficient in all ability checks" and see what the players do. I know everyone having proficiency is the same as no-one having it and have the DC lowered, but the group will think this is an amazing deal and try to make as many skill checks as possible; giving you a ton of data. The results will be contaminated by your sample size, but it's a good starting point.

I too did my own skill revision, where I condensed the skill list down a lot. This left me with the problem of players easily getting proficiency with the entire skill list. I wondered if I should redo backgrounds, invocations, expertise, class features, class proficiencies etc. just to fix the problem. I actually started on that project, but in the end I decided "If I can't explain a houserule in one sentence, it's not going to help my players; only make the game more complicated". So I decided against it.

What I ended up doing was using my condensed list as a baseline, and then add "floating skills" on top of it. Floating skills are skills that change between campaigns. This gave me the correct number of skills, but ensured that each skill was 100% relative and useful. Don't offer Survival as a skill in an urban-focused campaign, and don't offer investigation if you're just gonna make it do the same thing as Perception. That's just giving a player a trap option, and is not very nice.

For my campaign I use the baseline/condensed skill list, and added 4 tool/crafting skills on top of it.

I know this isn't what you're going for, but you might be able to learn something from my research here and here

Many suggested I could take it to a more extreme, like you're suggesting. Don't hesitate to send them a PM.

1. Arcana
2. Athletics
3. Deduction (Insight/Investigate)
4. Knowledge (History/Nature/Religion)
5. Perception
6. Leadership (Intimidate/Persuasion) ---> "I am a strong personality"
7. Speechcraft (Deception/Performance) ------> "I am manipulative/charming"
8. Stealth
9. Item Interaction (Sleight of Hand/Thieves' Tools)
10. Medicine (tend wounds, aid recovery)

You might also enjoy my "suggested mechanics" for each skill, found in my houserule document.

[johnbragg]

That's a clever way to do it. Take one campaign where "There are no skills, and your are proficient in all ability checks" and see what the players do.

No, I meant "stare at the skill list, reflect over 30 years of on-and-off RPGing, and write down what skills get used in D&D adventuring."

Maybe I've been reading too many OSR blogs, but I find sometimes that my new-ish players are still a little overwhelmed by the complexity of the character sheet.

Looking at the 5E list first

1. Athletics (Jump Climb Swim) (STR)
2. Acrobatics (Balance Tumble) (DEX)
3. Stealth
4. Sleight of Hand (nearly obsolete--PCs haven't used Pick Pockets since 2E)
5. Book Learning (Arcana History Religion/ Knowledge : So, so many)
6. "Roll a Spot/Perception Check"/"What's your Passive Perception?"
7. Search the room
8. Is the door trapped? Can I disarm the trap on the door? Is it locked? Can I pick the lock?
9. Can I befriend the beastie? Feed it some rations? Teach it to sit? Attack my enemies?
10. "I roll Sense Motive/Insight check because this guy's lying"
11. Heal / Medicine check (makes a comeback in 5E with the alternate "roll a Medicine check to spend HD" rule)
12. Track the Bad Guy
13. Diplomancy (includes Bluff, Deception, Intimidation, Persuasion, etc)

A lot of this is wholesale replacing Skills with Ability Checks, and giving players flexibiltiy to pick 2-3 Abilities they're Proficient in. Throw in some on-the-fly DM determination of Trained, Familiar, Untrained.

Is anything really lost by just folding Stealth into Dexterity? Is anybody going to be rolling a Sleight of Hand check who didn't pick Dexterity as one of their trained abilities? Same for Book Learning and Intelligence. Medicine checks shouldn't matter to PCs, they're spending HD.

The only thing really left is Traps and Tracking. Tracking is either a background or class feature.
Traps become a little bit complicated. You have an interaction of Wisdom (You See The Trap), Intelligence (Figure out how the trap works) and Dexterity (verrry carefully take apart the trap without setting it off). Splitting that up is a cool way to get more party members involved, but you might have to knock down DC's by 5 to balance out the de facto Disadvantage you've given the party.

I too did my own skill revision, where I condensed the skill list down a lot. This left me with the problem of players easily getting proficiency with the entire skill list.

I figure it's easy enough to be chintzy with how many skills they get. "You're proficient in 2-3 Abilities, plus a Skill or two from your Class, plus what you know from your Background." A Ranger is proficient in almost anything he tries to do in the woods. (Or whatever his specialty is), has Expertise in checks involving animals or plants in the woods. A Sorcerer from a Country background is proficient in checks to avoid attracting bears to camp. etc.

Should there be a background that gives proficiency with traps? Detecting, investigating, disarming? Maybe that's your non-urchin, non-academic Town/City background.

I wondered if I should redo backgrounds, invocations, expertise, class features, class proficiencies etc. just to fix the problem. I actually started on that project, but in the end I decided "If I can't explain a houserule in one sentence, it's not going to help my players; only make the game more complicated". So I decided against it.

I don't think redoing backgrounds is that hard. Especially if you accept a level of DM discretion.

I think Abilities and Backgrounds just carved up Skills and ate them.

[Bohandas]

One issue with the skill and ability sysyem that should have to remove unnecessary math and paperwork is the way ability modifiers are calculated. In a well designed system the modifier would be exactly half the ability score and all non-opposed DCs would simply be 5 higher. This would also have the upshot of giving characters enough skill points without needing to streamline the rest of the skill system (unfortunately, at this stage this would require rebuilding all monsters and NPCs from the ground up. If WoTC had just done this from the beginning though it would have fixed quite a lot)

[Bjarkmundur]

Agreed. Also, since almost all skill checks are prompted by the DM, most of them can be rolled into saving throws. That's why I removed acrobatics. Avoiding fall damage is a DEX save, not a skill check.

So, what are we looking at now? Can we see a formatted version of what you have in mind after discussing the options a bit?
I think I understand you correctly, that you're not using 5e, so teaching players how the system works isn't going to be an issue. For my revision, I really didn't feel like constantly correcting my players "Oh, no, you forgot, that feature doesn't grant skills anymore". Neither did I feel like explaining to my barbarian how his already-limited number of out-of-combat options got cut in half lol. If you're adjusting a system, I think it's important that the adjustment goes over smoothly in the eyes of your player. If your players are learning a new system anyway, you have more freedom to go against the norm.

I did my own session of staring at the skills and reflect. I actually wrote all the skill uses down, and the created the skills around that. You can see what I wrote in the "Suggested Mechanics" of my houserule document. Are there any other uses for skills that we are missing, or do we only need a system that accounts for what I wrote down?

[johnbragg]

Agreed. Also, since almost all skill checks are prompted by the DM, most of them can be rolled into saving throws. That's why I removed acrobatics. Avoiding fall damage is a DEX save, not a skill check.

So, what are we looking at now? Can we see a formatted version of what you have in mind after discussing the options a bit?

I'm still not 100% sure. Sorry.

I think I understand you correctly, that you're not using 5e, so teaching players how the system works isn't going to be an issue. For my revision, I really didn't feel like constantly correcting my players "Oh, no, you forgot, that feature doesn't grant skills anymore". Neither did I feel like explaining to my barbarian how is alredy-limied number of out-of-combat options got cut in half lol.

I'd handwave Barbarian as having Proficiency in 2 Abilities (Strength and player's choice), and Wilderness Background.

Compare to a 5E generic Barbarian. Background Skills (Outlander) are Athletics and Survival. He loses the Survival "skill", but his tracking checks are all with proficiency because he has the Wilderness background. 5E gives him two more Skills out of Animal Handling, Intimidation, Nature and Perception. But Wilderness should cover most of Animal Handling and Nature, and he can pick up Intimidation or Perception and a lot more by taking Wisdom (gives Insight) or Charisma (gives Persuasion, Deception) as his second Proficient Ability.

If you're adjusting a system, I think it's important that the adjustment goes over smoothly in the eyes of your player. If your players are learning a new system anyways, you have more freedom to go against the norm.

It's a new system, but players are going to measure it against other systems they've played or half-played.

EDIT: Now that I've reached some kind of decision on what your character knows (what proficiencies he or she has), I can start messing around with the math at different levels and different stats.

[Bjarkmundur]

It's a new system, but players are going to measure it against other systems they've played or half-played.

That changes everything! No wonder I was feeling out of place in this thread xD
New system, alright, let's go!

I love the idea of background themes. I don't even think you need anything else! Simply remove skills altogether, and instead introduce a "background bonus". Each background then has a clause which states "A character with the _______ background is likely to be knowledgeable regarding X, Y and Z. Your DM might allow you to add a background bonus to a skill check when applicable.

Why not seperating the proficiencies in to "Nature" and "Nurture".

"You're character is naturally nimble. You gain Dexterity. You have spent most of your life in the wilderness. You gain the Wilderness Background".

Formal Education
You may ask your DM for a bonus dice on checks regarding recalling information or whether your character possesses knowledge regarding a certain subject.

Wilderness Background
You may ask your DM for a bonus dice on checks regarding travel and life in a wilderness or other non-urban areas.

Upper-Class Upbringing
You may ask your DM for a bonus dice on checks where your status or family name might give you an edge.

Street Urching
You may ask your DM for a bonus dice on when partaking in various illicit activities or checks regarding life in an urban area.

Craftsman
-----crafting system----

Trader
You may ask your DM for a bonus dice on checks related to the life of a merchant. Striking a deal, befriending a creature, appraising an item or knowledge of important landmarks are all important aspects of a trader's life.

etc.

Setting it up like this makes backgrounds an important part of a character's identity and the gameplay as a whole. It also is very mechanic-light. It's all player agency and DM-rulings. I think this fits well for what you have in mind. I mean, why add numbers to the mix anyways. You are just assigning a chance of success to what a player wants to do. 9 times out of 10 you already know whether something makes sense for a character to be able to do or not. Barbarian can lift heavy things. If the thing is to heavy, he can't lift it. No rolls needed, just a yes or no question. This just gives you the 'permission' to make these ruleings from day 1, and still gives you a mechanic to manipulate success chances. I mean, if an action is feasible for a character, but not automatic, I think 50% chance is reasonable. Like, yeah you can pick a lock, but this lock is special. You might not be able to pick this SPECIAL lock, you have to roll for how well you adjust to this challenge on the fly, without suffering consequences. Allowing a player to gain the bonus dice should just increase his chance to maybe 75-85%. It's a "yeah, you can do it, but not without effort and some luck" vs.s "This scenario is not unfamiliar to you, and you should be able to figure it out, most of the time."