For many players, optimizing builds is a puzzle solving exercise, which is just as legitimate a form of fun as any other.
If they go into your game, and use your “curse narrative concept,” then try to go into another DM’s game and do the same they will likely be told to piss off. The point of having it set down mechanically is so that the player can know objectively that their puzzle solving the build paid off. And so that they know there were no special favors from a “narrative” perspective that influenced their “mechanical” effectiveness.
While I am inclined to agree with you that not optimizing can open a lot more doors narratively, I do still believe that mechanics are important as well. Too much narrative and too few mechanics and we may as well just write a book together and stop pretending to “play a game” at all. There has to be a balance.
I would respectfully disagree with your final line there, on two grounds. First, with or without mechanics, you are almost certainly just as much cooperatively writing a book. It is possible to have a campaign that consists of nothing but a series of tactical challenges, but never seen such a campaign personally.
Second, the mechanics are pure illusion. This is no chess match or other board game. Outside of using modules that contain sample characters for use in said module, the rules do not set up pieces on both sides in any balanced and tested manner. The DM always has full control of the environment around the PC's, regardless of official game mechanics. It is not any sort of conventional game when finite power (the PC's) are 'against' infinite power (The DM). The structure is there to give players something interesting to build with, but ideally it should be as invisible as possible, since the real 'game' is that collective storytelling.
One needs no DM simply for character creation.
It’s no big shocker that you disagree with me. I was honestly wondering what took so long and if you were feeling well.
I disagree that “the game” is the collective storytelling. Collective storytelling requires no rules, dice, classes, any of that. Throw all that out the window and go tell a story if you want.
D&D, like any TTRPG, is a “Social Storytelling Game” and therefore has three main aspects to it.
Social- People enjoying spending time together.
Storytelling- People enjoying a narrative about characters and plots and stuff.
Game- People enjoying “playing” by a common set of rules and guidelines.
The balance I mentioned is in regards to those three aspects and how they relate for each individual table. Not “balance” in the rules, or between PCs, or between PCs and DM. But balance as to how important each of those three aspects are to any given group: Social, Storytelling, and Gaming.
Without rules and dice and stuff, all that’s left is “Social Storytelling” like around a campfire.
Without narrative, all that’s left is “Social Gaming” like chess.
Without communal interaction, all that’s left is “Storytelling Game” like Fallout or Skyrim.
To save time:
My philosophy is that the “Narrative, Game, and Social“ aspects of D&D need to be in relative balance for every table. Everyone in the group needs to be in roughly the same mindset about how important those three things are for their group.
If everyone is there to “Experience The Story” together then no problem.
If everyone is there to “Play the Game” (roll rice, calculate stats, etc.) then no problem.
If everyone is there to “Hang Out with Friends” then no problem.
But if one person mostly cares about Story, and another mostly cares about Game, and another mostly cares about Friends, then nobody ends up having fun. Story & Friends will resent “that boring rules Nazi,” Rules & Story will resent “the annoying distracting player,” and Friends & Rules will resent "the spotlight thief.”
Don’t get me wrong, I like rules, and I like some friendly socializing. I personally prefer more of a balance towards center. I like a table full of people who are very knowledgeable about the rules, but don’t worry about optimization. A table full of people who love to RP and really get into character, but also aren’t going to blatantly ignore that there are rules to do it. People who don’t resent a little crosstalk )because we’re humans for crying out loud), but also remember that we are there for a group activity, not a cocktail party. So basically anywhere generally around the middle of the table is fine by me.
(Paraphrased from multiple accumulated posts of mine.)
The dice, etc, distract from the power imbalance to provide the illusion of greater control and provide a structure by which growth can be measured.
They also help guide the DM as to what level of power to present.
Don't get my wrong, the mechanics are useful, but not in the purely 'mechanical' way many seem to fret over. It is true that such structure can enhance the story, but ideally it should be there as seamlessly as possible, hiding in the background. So many on these boards seem to insist that the mechanics should be at the forefront. It is like watching a movie and constantly being reminded that you are looking at a screen, with the sound of a projector behind you (less an issue with modern digital projectors, but still...)
So for you, “Playing The Game” is a low priority of the three. Certainly far lower than “Enjoying The Story” as a priority for you.
But that’s not true for everyone.
For many people, if the dice are that invisible then get rid of them entirely, and just go tell stories to one another. For those folks, “Playing The Game” is at least as important (or more so) than “Enjoying The Story.” For them, the rules and the dice are integral to their enjoyment of the hobby. Are you really gonna tell them their fun is wrong?
I could just as easily lay out an argument stating that the entire story is just an excuse to throw dice at monsters, and that the story works best when it’s as invisible as possible. Why do you think games like Hero Quest were/are so popular?
I have known groups that cared equally as little about both Story and Game because for them, D&D was just an excuse to drink beer and hang out. If they got absolutely nothing done in 4 hours, but had fun, was that “wrong” somehow?!? Of course not. It may not be my preference, but as long as they’re happy, who are we to judge?
For some groups, buying, assembling, and painting miniatures for use in their games is a major part of the hobby, and for other groups the idea is using minis at all seems pointless or inconvenient. Is either side wrong? Of course not. They should probably just play at separate tables is all.
I don’t say that “All Story and no Mechanics makes Kotath a dull [young human of nonspecified gender Identity].” So why insist that the opposite is true for others? Insisting that people are doing it wrong if they don’t do it the same way we do is kinda bad form.
That’s why the balance among the “Social,” “Storytelling,” and “Game” aspects of D&D is so table-by-table dependent. For your group, the rules “get in the way” if they are too visible. For another group, the rules are missed if they are not a more prevalent part of the experience. Neither side is “wrong,” they should just play at separate tables is all.
I would also like for Religion, Nature, Arcana, and History be grouped up into one "Lore" skill as well as making another "Lifting" skill based on Strength and an Endurance skill based on Constitution.
At that point why not just call it a 'Stuff I know' skill.... Meanwhile you want to separate 'lifting' and 'endurance' out as additional physical skills?
Why do their need to be four skills for "stuff I know" when there is only one skill for being Athletic. Being good at swimming and being good at lifting weights are totally different things, but they're currently just covered by one skill, and "Surviving" is also just one skill.
Also, yes, because there are no Constitution based skills for some nonsense reason, and there's only one Strength based one.
Because Constitution also affects HP. When Con did HP and had associated proficiencies in older editions it was too much. But that’s also why a Strength (Athletics) check could be used for lifting and a Constitution (Athletics) check could be used for endurance.
Normally, your proficiency in a skill applies only to a specific kind of ability check. Proficiency in Athletics, for example, usually applies to Strength checks. In some situations, though, your proficiency might reasonably apply to a different kind of check. In such cases, the DM might ask for a check using an unusual combination of ability and skill, or you might ask your DM if you can apply a proficiency to a different check. For example, if you have to swim from an offshore island to the mainland, your DM might call for a Constitution check to see if you have the stamina to make it that far. In this case, your DM might allow you to apply your proficiency in Athletics and ask for a Constitution (Athletics) check. So if you're proficient in Athletics, you apply your proficiency bonus to the Constitution check just as you would normally do for a Strength (Athletics) check. Similarly, when your half-‐‑orc barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma.
The thing is I don't want the next edition to be more rules heavy when it comes to the core rules. The reason I've not switched to pathfinder if because 5e has streamlined and simplified things to make actually playing more enjoyable. And in fact I want the three action system from pathfinder 2e because it is another way to streamline the rules even further than 5e has managed. I desperately don't want to a system where I have to remember tens of modifiers for each action and stat instead of just remembering I have advantage/disadvantage.
Enjoying the mechanical side doesn't mean I want the game to be as overcomplex and unpleasant to learn as possible.
What I don't get is why are these 13 classes perfect? Why is 18 not ok? Or why is 4 not ok? If we're going for simplicity, why not go back to fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard and do away with subclasses altogether as the rest can just be reskinned?
Tbh if things follow a trend of simplification both games are taking, I think that pathfinder 3e will end up the level of mechanics I enjoy, while DnD 6e will not be something I want to play at all. I can make a purely narrative story without bothering with rules at all, and I can play a pure mechanical miniatures game by playing warhammer.
I'm here for the fact the DnD manages to build a good framework and level of freedom for narrative and RP, while also providing a fun miniatures battle game. No other games provide such a good option for both together. As soon as it stops providing me with a miniatures game I enjoy, then it is no longer ticking both boxes and I'll move on.
I disagree that “the game” is the collective storytelling. Collective storytelling requires no rules, dice, classes, any of that. Throw all that out the window and go tell a story if you want.
D&D, like any TTRPG, is a “Social Storytelling Game” and therefore has three main aspects to it.
Social- People enjoying spending time together.
Storytelling- People enjoying a narrative about characters and plots and stuff.
Game- People enjoying “playing” by a common set of rules and guidelines.
The balance I mentioned is in regards to those three aspects and how they relate for each individual table. Not “balance” in the rules, or between PCs, or between PCs and DM. But balance as to how important each of those three aspects are to any given group: Social, Storytelling, and Gaming.
Without rules and dice and stuff, all that’s left is “Social Storytelling” like around a campfire.
Without narrative, all that’s left is “Social Gaming” like chess.
Without communal interaction, all that’s left is “Storytelling Game” like Fallout or Skyrim.
To save time:
My philosophy is that the “Narrative, Game, and Social“ aspects of D&D need to be in relative balance for every table. Everyone in the group needs to be in roughly the same mindset about how important those three things are for their group.
If everyone is there to “Experience The Story” together then no problem.
If everyone is there to “Play the Game” (roll rice, calculate stats, etc.) then no problem.
If everyone is there to “Hang Out with Friends” then no problem.
But if one person mostly cares about Story, and another mostly cares about Game, and another mostly cares about Friends, then nobody ends up having fun. Story & Friends will resent “that boring rules Nazi,” Rules & Story will resent “the annoying distracting player,” and Friends & Rules will resent "the spotlight thief.”
Don’t get me wrong, I like rules, and I like some friendly socializing. I personally prefer more of a balance towards center. I like a table full of people who are very knowledgeable about the rules, but don’t worry about optimization. A table full of people who love to RP and really get into character, but also aren’t going to blatantly ignore that there are rules to do it. People who don’t resent a little crosstalk )because we’re humans for crying out loud), but also remember that we are there for a group activity, not a cocktail party. So basically anywhere generally around the middle of the table is fine by me.
(Paraphrased from multiple accumulated posts of mine.)
The dice, etc, distract from the power imbalance to provide the illusion of greater control and provide a structure by which growth can be measured.
They also help guide the DM as to what level of power to present.
Don't get my wrong, the mechanics are useful, but not in the purely 'mechanical' way many seem to fret over. It is true that such structure can enhance the story, but ideally it should be there as seamlessly as possible, hiding in the background. So many on these boards seem to insist that the mechanics should be at the forefront. It is like watching a movie and constantly being reminded that you are looking at a screen, with the sound of a projector behind you (less an issue with modern digital projectors, but still...)
So for you, “Playing The Game” is a low priority of the three. Certainly far lower than “Enjoying The Story” as a priority for you.
But that’s not true for everyone.
For many people, if the dice are that invisible then get rid of them entirely, and just go tell stories to one another. For those folks, “Playing The Game” is at least as important (or more so) than “Enjoying The Story.” For them, the rules and the dice are integral to their enjoyment of the hobby. Are you really gonna tell them their fun is wrong?
I could just as easily lay out an argument stating that the entire story is just an excuse to throw dice at monsters, and that the story works best when it’s as invisible as possible. Why do you think games like Hero Quest were/are so popular?
I have known groups that cared equally as little about both Story and Game because for them, D&D was just an excuse to drink beer and hang out. If they got absolutely nothing done in 4 hours, but had fun, was that “wrong” somehow?!? Of course not. It may not be my preference, but as long as they’re happy, who are we to judge?
For some groups, buying, assembling, and painting miniatures for use in their games is a major part of the hobby, and for other groups the idea is using minis at all seems pointless or inconvenient. Is either side wrong? Of course not. They should probably just play at separate tables is all.
I don’t say that “All Story and no Mechanics makes Kotath a dull [young human of nonspecified gender Identity].” So why insist that the opposite is true for others? Insisting that people are doing it wrong if they don’t do it the same way we do is kinda bad form.
That’s why the balance among the “Social,” “Storytelling,” and “Game” aspects of D&D is so table-by-table dependent. For your group, the rules “get in the way” if they are too visible. For another group, the rules are missed if they are not a more prevalent part of the experience. Neither side is “wrong,” they should just play at separate tables is all.
It feels like you still misunderstand me, or at least, you are just using words I would not choose.
When you say "Enjoying the story" it comes across as passive. It is still a game for me in that it is still interactive, and the story is still told cooperatively.
Furthermore, I did say that the rules are useful in the background. Dice rolls are ideally quick and quickly resolved and thus not so distracting. And even to the extent that they are distracting, I stated clearly in the first line of my last post that a certain level of distraction has its own value, providing a relatively obvious curtain, a smaller amount of artificiality to conceal the wizard behind the DM screen providing the majority. They also help keep the DM somewhat humble too :)
I do not expect you to remember my earlier posts in this and other threads but it should be clear from them that I am not advocating any sort of mechanics free system. However I am advocating a freer approach to to the game, working with both rules and story telling techniques in a holistic manner rather than treating either (particularly the mechanics) as absolutes that must always be taken absolutely seriously.
And I am always only stating my opinion. I can speculate on the opinions of others, but can only really speak for myself.
When I wrote “Enjoy The Story” I am in no way implying passivity. I simply mean that the Story/Narrative aspect of the game takes precedence and that Rules/Mechanics (“Playing The Game”) take a backseat along with non-game related socializing (“Hanging Out”). Basically what you ascribe to, Storytelling is paramount and dice rolling should be kept to a minimum so as to not distract.
”Story” includes, but is not limited to: Plot, Characterization, Character Development, Setting, Narration, Story Twists, Storytelling, and anything at all related to story and not rules.
When I write about folks who love to “Play The Game,” I mean that for many players, rolling the dice is the “fun part.” The Storytelling aspect of D&D that you want to most highlight at your table, is just an excuse to get to roll dice. There are players who couldn’t give a rat’s behind about collective storytelling, and think that is best kept to a minimum so as to not delay the next opportunity to roll dice and crunch on rules.
”Game” includes, but is not limited to: Rules (RAW, RAI, RAF); Mechanics; Purposeful dice rolling; Houserules; Homebrewing; and basically anything in the book that objectively governs what one’s character “can” and “cannot” do.
When I write about those who play D&D to “Hang Out,” there are legitimately people for whom D&D could be replaced with just about anything, or really nothing and they would be fine with it. (I heard of a study a couple years ago that asked people what kinds of plans they make. The majority of women are perfectly comfortable making plans with each other to “get together and talk,” however the majority of men prefer to make plans to “go fishing” or “work on the car” as the premise under which thy “get together and talk.”) So if some epic DM narrative, communal storytelling activity is too distracting they won’t enjoy it, and the same goes for the rules too. Neither of those things should distract from the “true purpose of D&D” for them, which is socializing with friends.
“Socializing/Hanging Out” includes, but is not limited to: Anything you could do together even if you weren’t playing D&D.
None of those to be confused with “Role Playing” which includes, but is not limited to: Speaking in 3rd person (“My character explains blahblahblah....”); Speaking in 1st person (“I tell them blahblahblah....”); Speaking in character (*in a slightly deeper voice* “Blahblahblahblah....”); Describing character actions; Making decisions regarding one’s character, their appearance, actions, decisions, general outlook, and behavior in social interactions.
Those are three completely different, very active was to enjoy D&D. None of them are wrong. And truth be told, the vast majority of people blend those together into their own custom amalgamation of priorities that best suits their group’s tastes.
LET ME BE CLEAR: (🙄 I hate how necessary this has become.)
I am not saying that people who are more “Story” focused do not enjoy “The Game,” nor that they dislike “Socializing.” Story focused players can and usually do enjoy both of those aspects, they just generally all concur that the main point is the storytelling.
And I am not saying that people who are more focused on “Playing The Game” do not also enjoy “The Story,” nor that they dislike “Socializing.” Game focused players can and usually do enjoy both of those aspects, they just generally all concur that interacting with the rules and game mechanics in a meaningful way provides at least as much enjoyment, or more.
And I am not saying that people who are primarily concerned with “Socializing” do not also enjoy “The Story” and “The Game.” They just generally feel that the main point is really “doing it together.”
I have only skimmed most of this thread, but you and I converse enough that I generally understand you views on this topic. I’m not saying you’re wrong. What I am saying is that there really isn’t a 1-size-fits-all answer. For some folks, what you describe as “holistic” would put too low a priority on rules and “Playing The Game.” Someone else’s idea of “holistic” would probably put too great an emphasis on mechanics for your preference.
It sounds like your version of “working with both rules and story telling techniques in a holistic manner” means Storytelling is paramount, and mechanics support the narrative. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 65%-75% Storytelling and 25%-35% Dice Rolling.
“...the mechanics are pure illusion. This is no chess match or other board game. Outside of using modules that contain sample characters for use in said module, the rules do not set up pieces on both sides in any balanced and tested manner. The DM always has full control of the environment around the PC's, regardless of official game mechanics. It is not any sort of conventional game when finite power (the PC's) are 'against' infinite power (The DM). The structure is there to give players something interesting to build with, but ideally it should be as invisible as possible, since the real 'game' is that collective storytelling.” — Kotath, 2020
What you’re basically saying is that the rules are an illusion since the DM can arbitrarily change whatever they want if it fits the story better. The old adage of “A good DM doesn’t let the rules get in the way of a good story.”
To many players, the point of D&D is in fact to test their combined mental mettle and build skills specifically against the DM’s under a set of agreed upon, objective rules to govern everyone, DM included. Even if there are houserules, everyone needs to agree to them beforehand, the DM cannot “just change things.” For some, this is D&D. There are those who think the very concept of a DM “hot fixing” an encounter in progress is “cheating,” categorically, unequivocally, “cheating.” After all, if the rules are not objective, and if the DM is not also bound by them, then how is it fair?
I doubt you would personally ever have even conceived of the notion that a DM could “cheat.” Just like for others, they never even conceived of the notion that a DM can in fact “just change things.”
I would also like for Religion, Nature, Arcana, and History be grouped up into one "Lore" skill as well as making another "Lifting" skill based on Strength and an Endurance skill based on Constitution.
At that point why not just call it a 'Stuff I know' skill.... Meanwhile you want to separate 'lifting' and 'endurance' out as additional physical skills?
Why do their need to be four skills for "stuff I know" when there is only one skill for being Athletic. Being good at swimming and being good at lifting weights are totally different things, but they're currently just covered by one skill, and "Surviving" is also just one skill.
Also, yes, because there are no Constitution based skills for some nonsense reason, and there's only one Strength based one.
Survival is a much smaller subject than 'nature.' It is a more specific subset of nature.
Athletics is the skill of knowing how to work out and keep your body in top condition, which affects both swimming and lifting. However knowing how to do both is still a much smaller portion of knowledge than your 'stuff I know' skill. Heck it is arguably also a subset of nature knowledge.
Based on your logic, you should likely push for a complete lack of any skill system. Just go back to raw stat checks for everything.
Survival is about surviving in nature, and isn't a part of the "Nature" skill, really. Tracking someone, lighting fires, predicting weather, finding food, and many of the other things that Survival covers is much more vague than many other skills in the game.
Athletics has nothing to do with "knowing" anything. It's about being athletic. If there are 4 different skills for knowing obscure parts of lore, two skills for noticing things, and three tied to nature/animals, there should be more than just one skill for everything athletic.
No, I like skills. I like how you can focus on certain parts of your main abilities in D&D 5e, but Constitution deserves at least one skill, and Strength deserves more than one. One of the reasons why Dexterity and Strength are imbalanced in this edition is because of the skills used for Dexterity being oftentimes more useful than the Strength ones.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I would also like for Religion, Nature, Arcana, and History be grouped up into one "Lore" skill as well as making another "Lifting" skill based on Strength and an Endurance skill based on Constitution.
At that point why not just call it a 'Stuff I know' skill.... Meanwhile you want to separate 'lifting' and 'endurance' out as additional physical skills?
Why do their need to be four skills for "stuff I know" when there is only one skill for being Athletic. Being good at swimming and being good at lifting weights are totally different things, but they're currently just covered by one skill, and "Surviving" is also just one skill.
Also, yes, because there are no Constitution based skills for some nonsense reason, and there's only one Strength based one.
Survival is a much smaller subject than 'nature.' It is a more specific subset of nature.
Athletics is the skill of knowing how to work out and keep your body in top condition, which affects both swimming and lifting. However knowing how to do both is still a much smaller portion of knowledge than your 'stuff I know' skill. Heck it is arguably also a subset of nature knowledge.
Based on your logic, you should likely push for a complete lack of any skill system. Just go back to raw stat checks for everything.
Survival is about surviving in nature, and isn't a part of the "Nature" skill, really. Tracking someone, lighting fires, predicting weather, finding food, and many of the other things that Survival covers is much more vague than many other skills in the game.
Athletics has nothing to do with "knowing" anything. It's about being athletic. If there are 4 different skills for knowing obscure parts of lore, two skills for noticing things, and three tied to nature/animals, there should be more than just one skill for everything athletic.
No, I like skills. I like how you can focus on certain parts of your main abilities in D&D 5e, but Constitution deserves at least one skill, and Strength deserves more than one. One of the reasons why Dexterity and Strength are imbalanced in this edition is because of the skills used for Dexterity being oftentimes more useful than the Strength ones.
What about specialisms? You have general athletics and then you have a sub-skill like swimming, lifting etc. Maybe it would be too complex, but it would make the pretty boring skill system a lot more interesting...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
What about specialisms? You have general athletics and then you have a sub-skill like swimming, lifting etc. Maybe it would be too complex, but it would make the pretty boring skill system a lot more interesting...
That's why I suggested splitting up general "Athletics" into at least three feats; Endurance for Constitution, Fitness/Muscle for general strength checks, and some mechanic for lifting heavy objects (could be part of Muscle, but IMO, there should be at least 3-4 "physical health" based skills). If you make sub-skills of one skill, that's just overcomplicating things. It's much easier to just split up that general skill into multiple skills.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I would also like for Religion, Nature, Arcana, and History be grouped up into one "Lore" skill as well as making another "Lifting" skill based on Strength and an Endurance skill based on Constitution.
At that point why not just call it a 'Stuff I know' skill.... Meanwhile you want to separate 'lifting' and 'endurance' out as additional physical skills?
Why do their need to be four skills for "stuff I know" when there is only one skill for being Athletic. Being good at swimming and being good at lifting weights are totally different things, but they're currently just covered by one skill, and "Surviving" is also just one skill.
Also, yes, because there are no Constitution based skills for some nonsense reason, and there's only one Strength based one.
Survival is a much smaller subject than 'nature.' It is a more specific subset of nature.
Athletics is the skill of knowing how to work out and keep your body in top condition, which affects both swimming and lifting. However knowing how to do both is still a much smaller portion of knowledge than your 'stuff I know' skill. Heck it is arguably also a subset of nature knowledge.
Based on your logic, you should likely push for a complete lack of any skill system. Just go back to raw stat checks for everything.
Survival is about surviving in nature, and isn't a part of the "Nature" skill, really. Tracking someone, lighting fires, predicting weather, finding food, and many of the other things that Survival covers is much more vague than many other skills in the game.
Athletics has nothing to do with "knowing" anything. It's about being athletic. If there are 4 different skills for knowing obscure parts of lore, two skills for noticing things, and three tied to nature/animals, there should be more than just one skill for everything athletic.
No, I like skills. I like how you can focus on certain parts of your main abilities in D&D 5e, but Constitution deserves at least one skill, and Strength deserves more than one. One of the reasons why Dexterity and Strength are imbalanced in this edition is because of the skills used for Dexterity being oftentimes more useful than the Strength ones.
I agree that Athletics should be split up. Climbing and Swimming should be two separate skills. Being an Olympic swimmer doesn't make you a skilled rock climber. They would both fall under strength which means that a strong character would still be capable, but not as good as someone that is trained.
Grappling should not be a skill check but a type of attack.
What I don't like is the accusation that all the mechanical people want is more powerful options. If all I cared about was power, I'd be playing a palahexasorcadinlock or whatever the meta munchkin build is these days. If all I cared about was power, my storm herald barbarian wouldn't be using two weapon fighting, and would instead have just gone for great weapon master greataxe instead.
Exactly this! Wanting more options is not wanting to powergame, and even if it was, that wouldn't be a bad thing! If I wanted the most OP character in the game, I would go and play a Yuan-Ti Pureblood Hexblade-Sorcadin! I want more options to have a larger variety of characters! And homebrewing doesn't work for me! Like Yurei, I am the only good homebrewer at my table, so I only homebrew for my players. Playing my own homebrew feels morally wrong, akin to cheating. I don't play my homebrew in order to not be a jerk and I can't ask for homebrew from my DM, which leaves me in this limbo of not having the options I want, even though I've created them and balanced them.
I agree that Athletics should be split up. Climbing and Swimming should be two separate skills. Being an Olympic swimmer doesn't make you a skilled rock climber. They would both fall under strength which means that a strong character would still be capable, but not as good as someone that is trained.
Grappling should not be a skill check but a type of attack.
I agree completely with the first sentiment.
Yes! There are two ways I could see them changing that:
Grappling could be your total to hit for the attack vs. their Dexterity or Strength saving throw.
Grappling is a roll to hit their AC. On a hit, they are grappled.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Because Constitution also affects HP. When Con did HP and had associated proficiencies in older editions it was too much. But that’s also why a Strength (Athletics) check could be used for lifting and a Constitution (Athletics) check could be used for endurance.
Normally, your proficiency in a skill applies only to a specific kind of ability check. Proficiency in Athletics, for example, usually applies to Strength checks. In some situations, though, your proficiency might reasonably apply to a different kind of check. In such cases, the DM might ask for a check using an unusual combination of ability and skill, or you might ask your DM if you can apply a proficiency to a different check. For example, if you have to swim from an offshore island to the mainland, your DM might call for a Constitution check to see if you have the stamina to make it that far. In this case, your DM might allow you to apply your proficiency in Athletics and ask for a Constitution (Athletics) check. So if you're proficient in Athletics, you apply your proficiency bonus to the Constitution check just as you would normally do for a Strength (Athletics) check. Similarly, when your half-‐‑orc barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma.
First, Constitution getting a skill would not make it OP compared to the other skills. I understand the reason that it doesn't get any skills is because HP in 5e is Con-based, but adding a Con skill would not make it an any better ability score than it already is in 5e.
Second, for the Con-based HP thing, I addressed that in this post.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I agree that Athletics should be split up. Climbing and Swimming should be two separate skills. Being an Olympic swimmer doesn't make you a skilled rock climber. They would both fall under strength which means that a strong character would still be capable, but not as good as someone that is trained.
Grappling should not be a skill check but a type of attack.
I agree completely with the first sentiment.
Yes! There are two ways I could see them changing that:
Grappling could be your total to hit for the attack vs. their Dexterity or Strength saving throw.
Grappling is a roll to hit their AC. On a hit, they are grappled.
What about Jumping? Should that also be its own skill? Keep the Athletic Skill in regards to things like lifting, pushing, dragging and other general feats of strengths and then having climbing, swimming and jumping as separate skills?
Also I do think that Endurance could be a Con skill like it was in the previous edition which could be a check used to endure the elements and other harsh conditions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
I don't think that Constitution needs skills. I like that it is unique compared to the other skills, that everyone needs it yet it isn't overpowered.
The reason I proposed giving Constitution at least one skill in the first place is because it is a weird ability score. It is only really needed for two reasons in D&D 5e, which are Hit Points and Constitution saving throws.
Firstly, hit points. According to the PHB's definition of Hit Points being a mix of "physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck," Constitution should definitely not be the only ability score tied to hit points. If they were to change this in the next edition to make the way you get hit points match the current definition of hit points, they would have to give Constitution another purpose to make it not be the 6th worst ability score for non-casters.
Secondly, the most common Constitution saving throws are for avoiding conditions and damage, and Concentration checks. The first main use (avoiding conditions, such as; poisoned, exhaustion, petrification, etc) are fairly uncommon. The second main use (avoiding damage) is fairly useful, but the damage types caused by abilities that cause Con saves typically are more rare types of damage, but fairly commonly resisted/immune (poison, acid, cold). The last main use (Concentration) is an underused ability typically only used by spellcasters.
Constitution is a weird and unequal ability score, and IMO, all of the ability scores should be equally important. To me, the fact that nearly everyone by default has their third highest ability score be Constitution is boring and a problem. Sure, it's mostly balanced, but this balance comes at the cost of it being an interesting ability score.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I would also like for Religion, Nature, Arcana, and History be grouped up into one "Lore" skill as well as making another "Lifting" skill based on Strength and an Endurance skill based on Constitution.
At that point why not just call it a 'Stuff I know' skill.... Meanwhile you want to separate 'lifting' and 'endurance' out as additional physical skills?
Why do their need to be four skills for "stuff I know" when there is only one skill for being Athletic. Being good at swimming and being good at lifting weights are totally different things, but they're currently just covered by one skill, and "Surviving" is also just one skill.
Also, yes, because there are no Constitution based skills for some nonsense reason, and there's only one Strength based one.
Survival is a much smaller subject than 'nature.' It is a more specific subset of nature.
Athletics is the skill of knowing how to work out and keep your body in top condition, which affects both swimming and lifting. However knowing how to do both is still a much smaller portion of knowledge than your 'stuff I know' skill. Heck it is arguably also a subset of nature knowledge.
Based on your logic, you should likely push for a complete lack of any skill system. Just go back to raw stat checks for everything.
Survival is about surviving in nature, and isn't a part of the "Nature" skill, really. Tracking someone, lighting fires, predicting weather, finding food, and many of the other things that Survival covers is much more vague than many other skills in the game.
Athletics has nothing to do with "knowing" anything. It's about being athletic. If there are 4 different skills for knowing obscure parts of lore, two skills for noticing things, and three tied to nature/animals, there should be more than just one skill for everything athletic.
No, I like skills. I like how you can focus on certain parts of your main abilities in D&D 5e, but Constitution deserves at least one skill, and Strength deserves more than one. One of the reasons why Dexterity and Strength are imbalanced in this edition is because of the skills used for Dexterity being oftentimes more useful than the Strength ones.
Acrobatics is just as applicable as Athletics in many situations. And they could all key off of Str, Dex, or Con depending on the situation and the DM. And both of those skills include a certain amount of “knowledge” about one’s own body, and how it interacts with the environment; to properly breath; how/when to pace oneself for energy consumption; how/when to give explosive power when necessary or prudent; body positioning and angles.... While yes, there is a huge difference between the knowledge one accrues when preparing as a mountain climber as compared to a swimmer, or even a sprinter compared to a marathon runner, but just having one skill about “General Athleticism” seems okay considering that most PCs are rarely on their local swim teams.
For as often as Athletics comes up in D&D compared to average party size and composition, if the only player out of five who ever actually makes a Str build had to actually take proficiency in multiple skills for athletic purposes, it would suck. It isn’t about balancing Physical with Mental Skills, it’s about balancing the number of skills for a subject compared to the number of PCs/party looking to potentially compete for space in those fields. If “The Strong Person” had to invest in different skills individually then they would never have enough skill slots to learn anything else. Having Arcana, Religion, History, and Nature be separated like that means no one PC in the party dominates every field. A “General Knowledge” or “Lore” check in 5e is just straight Intelligence.
There’s really only one Skill for “noticing stuff,” Perception. If you meant Investigation then that’s really less “notice stuff” and more “study stuff” which isn’t quite the same thing. One is general observation, the other is focused thought. Perception might let one physically see the key on the table, but the important part is recognizing it as a clue. If you meant Insight as the other, reading people is less to do with “noticing” things about people, and more about a “hunches,” when our subconscious applies knowledge and perception and jumps to a conclusion we cannot necessarily rationalize. (And if one can rationally explain those things, usually it’s because of specific training/education, and often it comes down to focused pattern recognition and physical “symptoms” and how they inform applied psychology.)
Survival isn’t a subset or alternate for Nature skill either. The Nature skill is all basically academic information about one gimungus subject. Survival is more practical application. Nature is more “book smarts” and Survival is more “street smarts” without streets. Come to think of it, Survival doesn’t have to be restricted to “natural settings” either.... Which is good or else there would need to be a “City Wise” or “Urban Survival” skill.
Animal Handling is a tricky one because that’s really like Insight, Perception, Performance, Persuasion, Intimidation, and “Animal Lore” thrown in too.
I wish that there was a separate “Engineering” skill, like Arcana for Science instead off Magic.
What about Jumping? Should that also be its own skill? Keep the Athletic Skill in regards to things like lifting, pushing, dragging and other general feats of strengths and then having climbing, swimming and jumping as separate skills?
Also I do think that Endurance could be a Con skill like it was in the previous edition which could be a check used to endure the elements and other harsh conditions.
Okay, here's my current layout of what the "physical fitness" skills could be.
First, Muscle. This is a Strength based skill, used for a variety of uses, from arm-wrestling and other Strength contests, heavy-lifting/dragging/pulling, breaking down doors/walls, shoving, and other similar uses.
Second, Mobility. This is a Strength based skill (but like how Intimidation can be Strength based in certain situations, this can be Dexterity based for certain scenarios). This is used for swimming, climbing, jumping, running, and so on.
Third, Health. This is a Constitution based skill, which allows you to put your body in situations it probably shouldn't be in, like a Constitution saving throw, but voluntary. You can make a Health check when eating food that is expired or diseased. Health checks can also let you drink alcohol without becoming poisoned, the DC going up the more alcohol you have consumed.
Third, Endurance. This is a Constitution based skill, used for determining how long you can endure sustained physical harm. For example, lifting a heavy object is a Muscle check, but continuing to hold it for an extended period of time is an Endurance check. Swimming is a Mobility check, but being able to maintain your pace after a certain amount of time is an Endurance check. Being able to drink a certain amount of alcohol is a Health check, but Endurance determines if you can keep it in your stomach.
Those are my current thoughts to avoid splitting up Athletics into 10+ skills. It would just be 3-4 skills like these that would each be wide enough to cover most of the different aspects of physical health without making things too complicated by splitting up each movement speed into a skill, along with grappling, shoving, lifting, and so on.
Hmmm, I actaully think that Endurance would be a good skill to have. I don't know about health, that doesn't seem like a learnable skill. Muscle is also a good skill for differentiating physical strength and proportionate strength.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Hmmm, I actaully think that Endurance would be a good skill to have. I don't know about health, that doesn't seem like a learnable skill. Muscle is also a good skill for differentiating physical strength and proportionate strength.
Health is kind of rough as a concept currently. Almost all of what it covers could just be Constitution saving throws, but I would like for there to be at least two Con skills.
To many players, the point of D&D is in fact to test their combined mental mettle and build skills specifically against the DM’s under a set of agreed upon, objective rules to govern everyone, DM included. Even if there are houserules, everyone needs to agree to them beforehand, the DM cannot “just change things.” For some, this is D&D. There are those who think the very concept of a DM “hot fixing” an encounter in progress is “cheating,” categorically, unequivocally, “cheating.” After all, if the rules are not objective, and if the DM is not also bound by them, then how is it fair?
I doubt you would personally ever have even conceived of the notion that a DM could “cheat.” Just like for others, they never even conceived of the notion that a DM can in fact “just change things.”
The bolded is the key thing. The DM is not in any way under the rules ordered to set any particular defence. And frankly, as far as setting tactical challenges, the DM is always playing to lose convincingly. No one is going to play a campaign that is essentially a survival coin flip and if the DM is really playing to win, well, he literally holds all the cards. He can just throw overwhelming numbers. He shouldn't, but he can. No actual rule against it. There is no rule that says the PC's must win, or must survive, let alone always survive.
It is not even a matter of the DM can 'just change things.' They literally set the odds. They do not have to 'just change' anything. The raiders that the party have gone off to fight can be simply a lot tougher than they thought. A good DM would have given the party plenty of warning in such a circumstance, so they have enough knowledge to choose to do something else instead of choosing to directly and immediately attack said raiders, but the DM is under no actual obligation to set them up as beatable with the party's current offensive capacity.
The DM represents literally not even just the entire world, but the entire continuum, every deity, every plane, every alternate reality.
I agree though that there are people who nevertheless feel it is them versus the DM. There are people in the world who believe all sorts of things.
And yet, despite all of that, was still very much adversarial at its inception. And a lot of people still play to “beat the challenges” under the assumption that the DM is in fact playing fair by using things like CR and HP and Attack Modifiers. Just because that isn’t how you play, how you conceive of it, that doesn’t mean that the same holds true for others.
For some players, the whole point of D&D is to make the strongest possible character they can, group with others doing the same, and test those PCs against the hardest “balanced” encounters they can, and then having the DM turn it up to 11. The fact that the DM is playing to loose convincingly becomes irrelevant at that point, because the Players can enjoy the verisimilitude sup ported by the fact that their PC is so 733+ that they can suspend disbelief. These are often the players who only play on nightmare difficulty and skip the cutscenes because they don’t care why aliens are invading, they only need to know the control layout and what colors the ‘retical changes to.
I like the idea of Muscle and Mobile, it does a good job of showcasing the difference between pure strength actions vs more trained athletic actions.
I agree that Health is a bit weak as a skill concept but I can see what you are going for as it's the difference between enduring something you aren't prepared for and bracing yourself to endure something you are aware of.
So for you, “Playing The Game” is a low priority of the three. Certainly far lower than “Enjoying The Story” as a priority for you.
But that’s not true for everyone.
For many people, if the dice are that invisible then get rid of them entirely, and just go tell stories to one another. For those folks, “Playing The Game” is at least as important (or more so) than “Enjoying The Story.” For them, the rules and the dice are integral to their enjoyment of the hobby. Are you really gonna tell them their fun is wrong?
I could just as easily lay out an argument stating that the entire story is just an excuse to throw dice at monsters, and that the story works best when it’s as invisible as possible. Why do you think games like Hero Quest were/are so popular?
I have known groups that cared equally as little about both Story and Game because for them, D&D was just an excuse to drink beer and hang out. If they got absolutely nothing done in 4 hours, but had fun, was that “wrong” somehow?!? Of course not. It may not be my preference, but as long as they’re happy, who are we to judge?
For some groups, buying, assembling, and painting miniatures for use in their games is a major part of the hobby, and for other groups the idea is using minis at all seems pointless or inconvenient. Is either side wrong? Of course not. They should probably just play at separate tables is all.
I don’t say that “All Story and no Mechanics makes Kotath a dull [young human of nonspecified gender Identity].” So why insist that the opposite is true for others? Insisting that people are doing it wrong if they don’t do it the same way we do is kinda bad form.
That’s why the balance among the “Social,” “Storytelling,” and “Game” aspects of D&D is so table-by-table dependent. For your group, the rules “get in the way” if they are too visible. For another group, the rules are missed if they are not a more prevalent part of the experience. Neither side is “wrong,” they should just play at separate tables is all.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Because Constitution also affects HP. When Con did HP and had associated proficiencies in older editions it was too much. But that’s also why a Strength (Athletics) check could be used for lifting and a Constitution (Athletics) check could be used for endurance.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The thing is I don't want the next edition to be more rules heavy when it comes to the core rules. The reason I've not switched to pathfinder if because 5e has streamlined and simplified things to make actually playing more enjoyable. And in fact I want the three action system from pathfinder 2e because it is another way to streamline the rules even further than 5e has managed. I desperately don't want to a system where I have to remember tens of modifiers for each action and stat instead of just remembering I have advantage/disadvantage.
Enjoying the mechanical side doesn't mean I want the game to be as overcomplex and unpleasant to learn as possible.
What I don't get is why are these 13 classes perfect? Why is 18 not ok? Or why is 4 not ok? If we're going for simplicity, why not go back to fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard and do away with subclasses altogether as the rest can just be reskinned?
Tbh if things follow a trend of simplification both games are taking, I think that pathfinder 3e will end up the level of mechanics I enjoy, while DnD 6e will not be something I want to play at all. I can make a purely narrative story without bothering with rules at all, and I can play a pure mechanical miniatures game by playing warhammer.
I'm here for the fact the DnD manages to build a good framework and level of freedom for narrative and RP, while also providing a fun miniatures battle game. No other games provide such a good option for both together. As soon as it stops providing me with a miniatures game I enjoy, then it is no longer ticking both boxes and I'll move on.
Those are three completely different, very active was to enjoy D&D. None of them are wrong. And truth be told, the vast majority of people blend those together into their own custom amalgamation of priorities that best suits their group’s tastes.
I have only skimmed most of this thread, but you and I converse enough that I generally understand you views on this topic. I’m not saying you’re wrong. What I am saying is that there really isn’t a 1-size-fits-all answer. For some folks, what you describe as “holistic” would put too low a priority on rules and “Playing The Game.” Someone else’s idea of “holistic” would probably put too great an emphasis on mechanics for your preference.
It sounds like your version of “working with both rules and story telling techniques in a holistic manner” means Storytelling is paramount, and mechanics support the narrative. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 65%-75% Storytelling and 25%-35% Dice Rolling.
What you’re basically saying is that the rules are an illusion since the DM can arbitrarily change whatever they want if it fits the story better. The old adage of “A good DM doesn’t let the rules get in the way of a good story.”
To many players, the point of D&D is in fact to test their combined mental mettle and build skills specifically against the DM’s under a set of agreed upon, objective rules to govern everyone, DM included. Even if there are houserules, everyone needs to agree to them beforehand, the DM cannot “just change things.” For some, this is D&D. There are those who think the very concept of a DM “hot fixing” an encounter in progress is “cheating,” categorically, unequivocally, “cheating.” After all, if the rules are not objective, and if the DM is not also bound by them, then how is it fair?
I doubt you would personally ever have even conceived of the notion that a DM could “cheat.” Just like for others, they never even conceived of the notion that a DM can in fact “just change things.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Survival is about surviving in nature, and isn't a part of the "Nature" skill, really. Tracking someone, lighting fires, predicting weather, finding food, and many of the other things that Survival covers is much more vague than many other skills in the game.
Athletics has nothing to do with "knowing" anything. It's about being athletic. If there are 4 different skills for knowing obscure parts of lore, two skills for noticing things, and three tied to nature/animals, there should be more than just one skill for everything athletic.
No, I like skills. I like how you can focus on certain parts of your main abilities in D&D 5e, but Constitution deserves at least one skill, and Strength deserves more than one. One of the reasons why Dexterity and Strength are imbalanced in this edition is because of the skills used for Dexterity being oftentimes more useful than the Strength ones.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
What about specialisms? You have general athletics and then you have a sub-skill like swimming, lifting etc. Maybe it would be too complex, but it would make the pretty boring skill system a lot more interesting...
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
That's why I suggested splitting up general "Athletics" into at least three feats; Endurance for Constitution, Fitness/Muscle for general strength checks, and some mechanic for lifting heavy objects (could be part of Muscle, but IMO, there should be at least 3-4 "physical health" based skills). If you make sub-skills of one skill, that's just overcomplicating things. It's much easier to just split up that general skill into multiple skills.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I agree that Athletics should be split up. Climbing and Swimming should be two separate skills. Being an Olympic swimmer doesn't make you a skilled rock climber. They would both fall under strength which means that a strong character would still be capable, but not as good as someone that is trained.
Grappling should not be a skill check but a type of attack.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Exactly this! Wanting more options is not wanting to powergame, and even if it was, that wouldn't be a bad thing! If I wanted the most OP character in the game, I would go and play a Yuan-Ti Pureblood Hexblade-Sorcadin! I want more options to have a larger variety of characters! And homebrewing doesn't work for me! Like Yurei, I am the only good homebrewer at my table, so I only homebrew for my players. Playing my own homebrew feels morally wrong, akin to cheating. I don't play my homebrew in order to not be a jerk and I can't ask for homebrew from my DM, which leaves me in this limbo of not having the options I want, even though I've created them and balanced them.
More options =/= wanting to minmax
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I agree completely with the first sentiment.
Yes! There are two ways I could see them changing that:
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
First, Constitution getting a skill would not make it OP compared to the other skills. I understand the reason that it doesn't get any skills is because HP in 5e is Con-based, but adding a Con skill would not make it an any better ability score than it already is in 5e.
Second, for the Con-based HP thing, I addressed that in this post.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I don't think that Constitution needs skills. I like that it is unique compared to the other skills, that everyone needs it yet it isn't overpowered.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
What about Jumping? Should that also be its own skill? Keep the Athletic Skill in regards to things like lifting, pushing, dragging and other general feats of strengths and then having climbing, swimming and jumping as separate skills?
Also I do think that Endurance could be a Con skill like it was in the previous edition which could be a check used to endure the elements and other harsh conditions.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
The reason I proposed giving Constitution at least one skill in the first place is because it is a weird ability score. It is only really needed for two reasons in D&D 5e, which are Hit Points and Constitution saving throws.
Firstly, hit points. According to the PHB's definition of Hit Points being a mix of "physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck," Constitution should definitely not be the only ability score tied to hit points. If they were to change this in the next edition to make the way you get hit points match the current definition of hit points, they would have to give Constitution another purpose to make it not be the 6th worst ability score for non-casters.
Secondly, the most common Constitution saving throws are for avoiding conditions and damage, and Concentration checks. The first main use (avoiding conditions, such as; poisoned, exhaustion, petrification, etc) are fairly uncommon. The second main use (avoiding damage) is fairly useful, but the damage types caused by abilities that cause Con saves typically are more rare types of damage, but fairly commonly resisted/immune (poison, acid, cold). The last main use (Concentration) is an underused ability typically only used by spellcasters.
Constitution is a weird and unequal ability score, and IMO, all of the ability scores should be equally important. To me, the fact that nearly everyone by default has their third highest ability score be Constitution is boring and a problem. Sure, it's mostly balanced, but this balance comes at the cost of it being an interesting ability score.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Acrobatics is just as applicable as Athletics in many situations. And they could all key off of Str, Dex, or Con depending on the situation and the DM. And both of those skills include a certain amount of “knowledge” about one’s own body, and how it interacts with the environment; to properly breath; how/when to pace oneself for energy consumption; how/when to give explosive power when necessary or prudent; body positioning and angles.... While yes, there is a huge difference between the knowledge one accrues when preparing as a mountain climber as compared to a swimmer, or even a sprinter compared to a marathon runner, but just having one skill about “General Athleticism” seems okay considering that most PCs are rarely on their local swim teams.
For as often as Athletics comes up in D&D compared to average party size and composition, if the only player out of five who ever actually makes a Str build had to actually take proficiency in multiple skills for athletic purposes, it would suck. It isn’t about balancing Physical with Mental Skills, it’s about balancing the number of skills for a subject compared to the number of PCs/party looking to potentially compete for space in those fields. If “The Strong Person” had to invest in different skills individually then they would never have enough skill slots to learn anything else. Having Arcana, Religion, History, and Nature be separated like that means no one PC in the party dominates every field. A “General Knowledge” or “Lore” check in 5e is just straight Intelligence.
There’s really only one Skill for “noticing stuff,” Perception. If you meant Investigation then that’s really less “notice stuff” and more “study stuff” which isn’t quite the same thing. One is general observation, the other is focused thought. Perception might let one physically see the key on the table, but the important part is recognizing it as a clue. If you meant Insight as the other, reading people is less to do with “noticing” things about people, and more about a “hunches,” when our subconscious applies knowledge and perception and jumps to a conclusion we cannot necessarily rationalize. (And if one can rationally explain those things, usually it’s because of specific training/education, and often it comes down to focused pattern recognition and physical “symptoms” and how they inform applied psychology.)
Survival isn’t a subset or alternate for Nature skill either. The Nature skill is all basically academic information about one gimungus subject. Survival is more practical application. Nature is more “book smarts” and Survival is more “street smarts” without streets. Come to think of it, Survival doesn’t have to be restricted to “natural settings” either.... Which is good or else there would need to be a “City Wise” or “Urban Survival” skill.
Animal Handling is a tricky one because that’s really like Insight, Perception, Performance, Persuasion, Intimidation, and “Animal Lore” thrown in too.
I wish that there was a separate “Engineering” skill, like Arcana for Science instead off Magic.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Okay, here's my current layout of what the "physical fitness" skills could be.
First, Muscle. This is a Strength based skill, used for a variety of uses, from arm-wrestling and other Strength contests, heavy-lifting/dragging/pulling, breaking down doors/walls, shoving, and other similar uses.
Second, Mobility. This is a Strength based skill (but like how Intimidation can be Strength based in certain situations, this can be Dexterity based for certain scenarios). This is used for swimming, climbing, jumping, running, and so on.
Third, Health. This is a Constitution based skill, which allows you to put your body in situations it probably shouldn't be in, like a Constitution saving throw, but voluntary. You can make a Health check when eating food that is expired or diseased. Health checks can also let you drink alcohol without becoming poisoned, the DC going up the more alcohol you have consumed.
Third, Endurance. This is a Constitution based skill, used for determining how long you can endure sustained physical harm. For example, lifting a heavy object is a Muscle check, but continuing to hold it for an extended period of time is an Endurance check. Swimming is a Mobility check, but being able to maintain your pace after a certain amount of time is an Endurance check. Being able to drink a certain amount of alcohol is a Health check, but Endurance determines if you can keep it in your stomach.
Those are my current thoughts to avoid splitting up Athletics into 10+ skills. It would just be 3-4 skills like these that would each be wide enough to cover most of the different aspects of physical health without making things too complicated by splitting up each movement speed into a skill, along with grappling, shoving, lifting, and so on.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Hmmm, I actaully think that Endurance would be a good skill to have. I don't know about health, that doesn't seem like a learnable skill. Muscle is also a good skill for differentiating physical strength and proportionate strength.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Health is kind of rough as a concept currently. Almost all of what it covers could just be Constitution saving throws, but I would like for there to be at least two Con skills.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
And yet, despite all of that, was still very much adversarial at its inception. And a lot of people still play to “beat the challenges” under the assumption that the DM is in fact playing fair by using things like CR and HP and Attack Modifiers. Just because that isn’t how you play, how you conceive of it, that doesn’t mean that the same holds true for others.
For some players, the whole point of D&D is to make the strongest possible character they can, group with others doing the same, and test those PCs against the hardest “balanced” encounters they can, and then having the DM turn it up to 11. The fact that the DM is playing to loose convincingly becomes irrelevant at that point, because the Players can enjoy the verisimilitude sup ported by the fact that their PC is so 733+ that they can suspend disbelief. These are often the players who only play on nightmare difficulty and skip the cutscenes because they don’t care why aliens are invading, they only need to know the control layout and what colors the ‘retical changes to.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I like the idea of Muscle and Mobile, it does a good job of showcasing the difference between pure strength actions vs more trained athletic actions.
I agree that Health is a bit weak as a skill concept but I can see what you are going for as it's the difference between enduring something you aren't prepared for and bracing yourself to endure something you are aware of.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills