Has anyone used the Skill Variants on pages 263-264 of the DMG in a game?
Examples they give are:
Ability Check Proficiency - where a character is proficient in every skill associated with one Ability Score, chosen from a list based on their class. Like a Rogue might be proficient in all Dexterity skills.
Background Proficiency - where a character is considered proficient in any roll that relates to their background. Like a farmer would be proficient in Wisdom rolls for handling farm animals, but not wild ones.
Personality Trait Proficiency - where a character is proficient in things related to their positive personality traits, and gets disadvantage on rolls impacted by their negative trait. Like a shrewd but absent-minded character getting a bonus when rolling to negotiate a deal, but a penalty when recalling the name of the person they dealt with later.
These rules are meant to be used instead of the normal skill proficiencies, not in addition to them. And they have special ways to handle expertise.
I'm especially interested in Background Proficiencies and think it could be really fun. I can see some challenges though too. So I was curious if anyone had ever tried any of them and what your experience was with them.
I have not used the variants in the DMG that you reference, however, I did add over 10 custom skills to my homebrew game. And since these skills are in addition, I used backstory to award proficiency. Some examples:
Appraisal (Int) - you've learned to determine the value of certain objects and treasures. I give this proficiency to rogues typically, or anyone that has a backstory in which they've dealt in exquisite goods for a long time (merchant, noble, treasure hunter, etc.)
DecipherScript (Int) - you've cultivated the ability to determine types of written language, even if you can't read or speak that language. I give this to Wizards and anyone who has spent time in their backstory poring over texts (acolytes, scholars, sages, nobles, etc.)
Steel Gut (Con) - you have an iron lining for a stomach, allowing you to ingest more alcohol and resist poison or disease from ingestion. This I give out racially, such as half-giants (homebrew race I added to DNDBeyond) or Goliaths. I give Leonin automatic expertise in this since lions eat things raw. I also give this to PCs with the Sailor background.
GatherInformation (Cha) - you have a knack for loosening lips and getting people talking. This I give to Bards and anyone with a social background (actor, charlatan, courtier, etc.)
Culture (Wis) - you are worldly and well versed in other cultural practices. This would allow characters to perhaps know certain facts about a particular race, like who the duergar worship, or identify the make of a blade, such as drow-forged or dwarven-crafted. This I give to Forest Gnomes, some bards, and anyone with lots of travel in their backstory or background (i.e. Outlander, Far Traveler)
Spellcraft (Int or Wis) - your skill in magic allows you to attempt certain abilities. This skill is reserved for any spellcaster who tries to make slight modifications to a spell, such as slightly extending its range or duration. A PC might say, I want to try to get Message to travel 200 feet instead of 120 to reach that person over there. I'd have them roll Spellcraft. This is for Wizards and anyone with a high-magic background, like an apprentice, sage, or scholar.
Just a few examples that you might find interesting! In short, I would definitely explore the Background Proficiency, as it is very immersive and distinctive.
Oh those are cool. I like the idea of background proficiencies that fit the campaign. And it's always nice to see a Constitution proficiency! Some of these definitely fill in some black spots in the normal rules. I especially like Culture being Wisdom based and something to roll other than History.
I'm very curious to try the Background Proficiency skill variant, but I know it will take a particular kind of group and game. It's probably not for everyone. I can see some discussions needed up front and heavy buy in from the group. But I can also imagine it being a very immersive experience that gets people thinking about their characters as people with a past more. I've been thinking of a game that starts at level 0 and has very slow progression that it might suit very well.
Oh those are cool. I like the idea of background proficiencies that fit the campaign. And it's always nice to see a Constitution proficiency! Some of these definitely fill in some black spots in the normal rules. I especially like Culture being Wisdom based and something to roll other than History.
I'm very curious to try the Background Proficiency skill variant, but I know it will take a particular kind of group and game. It's probably not for everyone. I can see some discussions needed up front and heavy buy in from the group. But I can also imagine it being a very immersive experience that gets people thinking about their characters as people with a past more. I've been thinking of a game that starts at level 0 and has very slow progression that it might suit very well.
Thanks for the feedback and cool ideas!
Absolutely. If you are looking for another Constitution skill, I also have Fitness (Con) in my game. Essentially, Fitness checks are made in place of raw Constitution checks to determine exhaustion levels. For example, I think the highly fit barbarian who is known to travel long distances over his nomadic life should be able to add a proficiency bonus to checks made to resist fatigue from traveling longer than 8 hours in a day.
Culture is very fun and highly flavorful. And, just to note, I do separate all of the knowledge based on skill check. Let's say the party comes across a an old short sword, rusted and half-buried, while traveling through a mountain pass. A Wisdom (Culture) check might determine that this blade is actually of drow make, given the curvature and erosion of the blade from exposure to the sun. From that, someone proficient in history could make an Intelligence (History) check to recall that an infamous dark elf battle was fought in this pass two decades ago - meaning there could be an active Underdark entrance nearby. This could raise tension and set the party back on their heels a bit as they proceed with caution. Perhaps they even come across some markings etched into the stone a bit later - a character proficient is Decipher Script could determine that it's indeed written in Undercommon and it appears to be recent.
Funny you should say that you are thinking of a campaign that starts at Level 0. That's what I did for my current campaign. All PCs started as Commoners and had to work through the first two or three sessions as aspirants of their desired class. It was great!
I have not used the variants in the DMG that you reference, however, I did add over 10 custom skills to my homebrew game. And since these skills are in addition, I used backstory to award proficiency. Some examples:
Appraisal (Int) - you've learned to determine the value of certain objects and treasures. I give this proficiency to rogues typically, or anyone that has a backstory in which they've dealt in exquisite goods for a long time (merchant, noble, treasure hunter, etc.)
DecipherScript (Int) - you've cultivated the ability to determine types of written language, even if you can't read or speak that language. I give this to Wizards and anyone who has spent time in their backstory poring over texts (acolytes, scholars, sages, nobles, etc.)
Steel Gut (Con) - you have an iron lining for a stomach, allowing you to ingest more alcohol and resist poison or disease from ingestion. This I give out racially, such as half-giants (homebrew race I added to DNDBeyond) or Goliaths. I give Leonin automatic expertise in this since lions eat things raw. I also give this to PCs with the Sailor background.
GatherInformation (Cha) - you have a knack for loosening lips and getting people talking. This I give to Bards and anyone with a social background (actor, charlatan, courtier, etc.)
Culture (Wis) - you are worldly and well versed in other cultural practices. This would allow characters to perhaps know certain facts about a particular race, like who the duergar worship, or identify the make of a blade, such as drow-forged or dwarven-crafted. This I give to Forest Gnomes, some bards, and anyone with lots of travel in their backstory or background (i.e. Outlander, Far Traveler)
Spellcraft (Int or Wis) - your skill in magic allows you to attempt certain abilities. This skill is reserved for any spellcaster who tries to make slight modifications to a spell, such as slightly extending its range or duration. A PC might say, I want to try to get Message to travel 200 feet instead of 120 to reach that person over there. I'd have them roll Spellcraft. This is for Wizards and anyone with a high-magic background, like an apprentice, sage, or scholar.
Just a few examples that you might find interesting! In short, I would definitely explore the Background Proficiency, as it is very immersive and distinctive.
Appraisal and Decipher Script are the only ones in this list that are understandable.
Steel Gut already exists in the game. It's called a Con Saving Throw.
Gather Information already exists in the game. It's called Investigation.
Culture should be Intelligence.
Spellcraft already exists in the game. It's called Arcana.
You're way overcomplicating skills. I mean, if you find it fun, go for it. Whatever works. Just wouldn't be the advice I'd give.
---
Anyways, to the main topic. There can be many ways you might call for a different ability for a skill check. For instance, perhaps your attempt to persuade somebody is rooted in the facts and logical presentation - that would be Intelligence (Persuasion) check. Maybe an attempt to intimidate somebody is making a shallow cut on your forearm without flinching - staring at the target with a gleeful grin, well that's gonna be Constitution (Intimidation). Or perhaps instead they use their muscles or punch right through a wooden table to convince somebody not to mess with you, why that's Strength (Intimidation).
And of course, if you're a spellcasting wanting to play or understand more about your own magic there's Spellcasting Ability (Arcana).
Or maybe you want to improv a poem that is entirely based on a purely clever use of historic facts with clever wordplay? That could be Intelligence (Performance).
Juggling would be Dexterity (Performance).
Wanting to taste a poisoned drink or meal to convince somebody it's safe to eat? Constitution (Deception).
I never feel restricted to a particular ability score for any skill checks, the default is a nice go to but it should not be restricted. And many groups operate this way - and have done, in my experience, since the days of 3rd edition. So none of this is a new concept in any way. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I have not used the variants in the DMG that you reference, however, I did add over 10 custom skills to my homebrew game. And since these skills are in addition, I used backstory to award proficiency. Some examples:
Appraisal (Int) - you've learned to determine the value of certain objects and treasures. I give this proficiency to rogues typically, or anyone that has a backstory in which they've dealt in exquisite goods for a long time (merchant, noble, treasure hunter, etc.)
DecipherScript (Int) - you've cultivated the ability to determine types of written language, even if you can't read or speak that language. I give this to Wizards and anyone who has spent time in their backstory poring over texts (acolytes, scholars, sages, nobles, etc.)
Steel Gut (Con) - you have an iron lining for a stomach, allowing you to ingest more alcohol and resist poison or disease from ingestion. This I give out racially, such as half-giants (homebrew race I added to DNDBeyond) or Goliaths. I give Leonin automatic expertise in this since lions eat things raw. I also give this to PCs with the Sailor background.
GatherInformation (Cha) - you have a knack for loosening lips and getting people talking. This I give to Bards and anyone with a social background (actor, charlatan, courtier, etc.)
Culture (Wis) - you are worldly and well versed in other cultural practices. This would allow characters to perhaps know certain facts about a particular race, like who the duergar worship, or identify the make of a blade, such as drow-forged or dwarven-crafted. This I give to Forest Gnomes, some bards, and anyone with lots of travel in their backstory or background (i.e. Outlander, Far Traveler)
Spellcraft (Int or Wis) - your skill in magic allows you to attempt certain abilities. This skill is reserved for any spellcaster who tries to make slight modifications to a spell, such as slightly extending its range or duration. A PC might say, I want to try to get Message to travel 200 feet instead of 120 to reach that person over there. I'd have them roll Spellcraft. This is for Wizards and anyone with a high-magic background, like an apprentice, sage, or scholar.
Just a few examples that you might find interesting! In short, I would definitely explore the Background Proficiency, as it is very immersive and distinctive.
Appraisal and Decipher Script are the only ones in this list that are understandable.
Steel Gut already exists in the game. It's called a Con Saving Throw.
Gather Information already exists in the game. It's called Investigation.
Culture should be Intelligence.
Spellcraft already exists in the game. It's called Arcana.
You're way overcomplicating skills. I mean, if you find it fun, go for it. Whatever works. Just wouldn't be the advice I'd give.
---
Anyways, to the main topic. There can be many ways you might call for a different ability for a skill check. For instance, perhaps your attempt to persuade somebody is rooted in the facts and logical presentation - that would be Intelligence (Persuasion) check. Maybe an attempt to intimidate somebody is making a shallow cut on your forearm without flinching - staring at the target with a gleeful grin, well that's gonna be Constitution (Intimidation). Or perhaps instead they use their muscles or punch right through a wooden table to convince somebody not to mess with you, why that's Strength (Intimidation).
And of course, if you're a spellcasting wanting to play or understand more about your own magic there's Spellcasting Ability (Arcana).
Or maybe you want to improv a poem that is entirely based on a purely clever use of historic facts with clever wordplay? That could be Intelligence (Performance).
Juggling would be Dexterity (Performance).
Wanting to taste a poisoned drink or meal to convince somebody it's safe to eat? Constitution (Deception).
I never feel restricted to a particular ability score for any skill checks, the default is a nice go to but it should not be restricted. And many groups operate this way - and have done, in my experience, since the days of 3rd edition. So none of this is a new concept in any way. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You've misread the skills above actually.
SteelGut is meant to add proficiency to certain character types, instead of just a raw Con save. By your logic, we shouldn't have any skills then. Why make an Acorbatics check? Just make a Dex check/save. This style doesn't work for me, nor do I think others would find that fun. I think skills should be broken down for greater immersion and character depth. Since there are really no Con skills, I think this helps flavor characters even more. A Con modifier helps, but just like the other skills, certain characters should be entitled to proficiency/expertise if it fits.
GatherInformation is not investigation. Gather Information is used to learn things in a social context - rumors, secrets, and things that NPCs keep to themselves or only talk about in certain circumstances or to people (PCs) that can convince them. Investigation is a better eye for detail, uncovering clues and puzzle pieces, or researching in tomes and libraries. Two completely different skills, which is why one is Intelligence and one is Charisma. A learned wizard might uncover certain knowledge poring over a dusty tome in the library, while a bard throws a party for the nobility and learns another vital piece of information that only a charismatic person could. And, to clarify, this is not Persuasion either.
I can see an argument for Culture being Intelligence, but attribute the Wisdom of having absorbed other cultures through experience as the key factor.
Spellcraft is not Arcana. Arcana is recalling lore about the planes or identifying types of spells, etc. Spellcraft is the physical manipulation of spell energy. As I stated in my example, trying to mildly enhance a certain spell would be spellcraft - your practice in amplifying mystical effects, not trying to recall your factual knowledge of the arcane.
It's really not that complicated. I actually can't think of a more simpler way to explain it. I will say though that it is only for highly immersive/experienced campaigns. I wouldn't suggest anyone implement these until they have a handle on the raw rules first.
Zyrrel, do you mind sharing how you ran your level 0 characters? I have seen a few suggestions from people but they tend to be intended for rather short periods of time spent before leveling up to a real class. I was thinking of spending longer in the novice phase, if I found a group interested in it.
Cyb3rM1nd, those are great examples. I do like the flexibility of the standard system. I'm afraid I don't usually find these situations come up very often though. That is likely my fault as the DM more than the players. It's instinctual in the moment to just call for 'a Persuasion check' rather than think about if a different ability could apply. And usually the alternatives are more useful in edge cases. You could juggle extremely well with Dexterity, but not put on a very entertaining show. While a charismatic juggler could drop a few balls and still enthral an audience. It depends on what they're trying to achieve in the moment.
This is why I was interested in some of the variants in the DMG, especially Background Proficiencies. Basically it would force every roll to be a judgement call. I would have to think more about what ability score to use, and if their background is applicable, on a case by case basis. And the players would have to lean into their character's story more if they want to be more successful at checks. Because you never apply a proficiency bonus except when it matches your backstory. It removes the broad catch-all named skills entirely.
Essentially this variant deletes all of the skills from your character sheet. You just have your 6 ability scores and a story. If you attempt something that your story says you are good at, you add your proficiency bonus to that roll. So, for example, if you are playing a barbarian from a group of nomads in the frozen tundra, that grew up herding animals and hunting on horseback, you might:
Add your proficiency bonus to riding horses and handling livestock, but not for taming a tiger.
Add your proficiency bonus for tracking animals stealthily in the snow and grasslands, but not for tracking a thief in the city.
Add your proficiency bonus for enduring the cold on a mountaintop, but not the heat of a jungle.
Add your proficiency bonus for performing the dances of your tribe, but not the waltz at a noble's ball.
Add your proficiency bonus to making stone arrows, but not forging a steel longsword.
The idea really appeals to me, for greater immersion, more intuitive results to skill checks, and forcing me to flex my creativity with the rules. I can see some potential drawbacks though. Players might spend too much time debating if their background applies. It might be too vague. Classes that get more skill proficiencies as a bonus feature would need some kind of compensation. And so on. But these could all be unfounded concerns if you have the right group of players. I was curious if anyone had tried this variant and what their experience was. I've never heard it talked about anywhere.
Zyrrel, do you mind sharing how you ran your level 0 characters? I have seen a few suggestions from people but they tend to be intended for rather short periods of time spent before leveling up to a real class. I was thinking of spending longer in the novice phase, if I found a group interested in it.
Cyb3rM1nd, those are great examples. I do like the flexibility of the standard system. I'm afraid I don't usually find these situations come up very often though. That is likely my fault as the DM more than the players. It's instinctual in the moment to just call for 'a Persuasion check' rather than think about if a different ability could apply. And usually the alternatives are more useful in edge cases. You could juggle extremely well with Dexterity, but not put on a very entertaining show. While a charismatic juggler could drop a few balls and still enthral an audience. It depends on what they're trying to achieve in the moment.
This is why I was interested in some of the variants in the DMG, especially Background Proficiencies. Basically it would force every roll to be a judgement call. I would have to think more about what ability score to use, and if their background is applicable, on a case by case basis. And the players would have to lean into their character's story more if they want to be more successful at checks. Because you never apply a proficiency bonus except when it matches your backstory. It removes the broad catch-all named skills entirely.
Essentially this variant deletes all of the skills from your character sheet. You just have your 6 ability scores and a story. If you attempt something that your story says you are good at, you add your proficiency bonus to that roll. So, for example, if you are playing a barbarian from a group of nomads in the frozen tundra, that grew up herding animals and hunting on horseback, you might:
Add your proficiency bonus to riding horses and handling livestock, but not for taming a tiger.
Add your proficiency bonus for tracking animals stealthily in the snow and grasslands, but not for tracking a thief in the city.
Add your proficiency bonus for enduring the cold on a mountaintop, but not the heat of a jungle.
Add your proficiency bonus for performing the dances of your tribe, but not the waltz at a noble's ball.
Add your proficiency bonus to making stone arrows, but not forging a steel longsword.
The idea really appeals to me, for greater immersion, more intuitive results to skill checks, and forcing me to flex my creativity with the rules. I can see some potential drawbacks though. Players might spend too much time debating if their background applies. It might be too vague. Classes that get more skill proficiencies as a bonus feature would need some kind of compensation. And so on. But these could all be unfounded concerns if you have the right group of players. I was curious if anyone had tried this variant and what their experience was. I've never heard it talked about anywhere.
I think it is definitely worth trying. Anything that promotes more distinction between characters is a win in my book. I agree that the "umbrella" skills can mesh characters too much. Why would learning how to track elk in the tundra automatically make you proficient in all things "Survival"? I'd give it a shot - and I would imagine the players would find it appealing and not spend time bantering over whether their backstory applies - so long as they are invested in their backstory. As an additional note, I always reinforce the idea of a Level 0 backstory. Players naturally gravitate to heroics when thinking of their PCs but if you encourage them to write backstories that equate with the deeds of a commoner, the game becomes more fun. There is a saying: "What's the best way to obtain a super powerful magic item (or item of similar value) in D&D? Put it in your backstory." If you outlaw this altogether, the leveling up experience is much more rewarding and skills will be far easier to track. The PC who spent his backstory herding elk across the tundra has very obvious and limited skills compared to the sage who traveled to four different continents and intermingled with all kinds of creatures before Level 1.
As for starting the campaign at Level 0, I will say that we did not do it for very long. The players were only Level 0 for about three sessions. The way I ran it was more narrative than mechanical, but it has had some lasting benefits, and it has come with some surprises! For example:
Level 0 Start
Commoner Stats + Racial Benefits. PCs use the Commoner stat block. Which is essentially 4 HP and no modifiers to anything. However, they retain their racial traits. Without any cultivated skills (no modifier or proficiency yet), PCs learned to lean into their racial perks early on. This helped setup a mental framework for how different races can accomplish different things and how best to synergize with each other. With only your racial features to give you an edge, lots of flavor was developed from the very start of the campaign.
Unarmed and Unarmored. PCs only start with common clothing, coin, and any tools that are relevant to their backstory or the campaign starting setting. Sometimes this can be a weapon, which gives certain players an edge! For example, some PCs might only have leatherworking tools, a fishing net, or healer's kit depending on their profession, while another has access to a hatchet (hand axe) for wood chopping. This immediately invites a sense of danger to the world as the PCs start off in a vulnerable state.
Immersive Quest Hook. At Level 0, just about any problem becomes an immersive sense of urgency. For a basic example, the village that the PCs start in becomes strong-armed by a group of henchmen working for the crime boss in the next town over. I know what you're thinking - thugs? really?. Yes, really! When you have no armor or weapons, this fight becomes that much more intense. Now, your quest hook becomes something relatable, immediate, and with high stakes. 1. Get yourself armed. 2. Survive long enough to equip yourselves and beat back the brigands. How immersive can this get? Well, at Level 0, PCs need to explore all options. The wood chopper PC (eventual fighter or barbarian) asks the lithe wood elf from the village (eventual rogue) to try retrieving his axe for him in the shed behind the stables, without being seen! The fisherman PC (eventual ranger) knows that Old Man Crawly on the east side of town keeps an old crossbow mounted above his hearth. If he can get to it, then he can join the fight! This simple idea becomes super drastic at Level 0 and it really promotes party cohesion early on, without the windfall of items and magic being there from Level 1.
Story-based Multiclassing. This is the biggest pleasant surprise! In my campaign, there was multiclassing choices that arose from the Level 0 start. For example, the player who determined they wanted to play a rogue ended up getting into scraps during Level 0. He found himself using his enviroment to wield improvised weapons and fend off attackers when his attempt to sneak didn't work. Based on this, he decided to multiclass into Fighter - saying that his PCs experience going toe-to-toe has driven him to sharpen his martial training. At Level 1, with modifier and proficiency, his sneak would have likely succeeded without issue. But since he attempted it raw at Level 0, he found that he really enjoyed the narrative-based multiclass.
I'm not too sure how long you could conceivably keep characters at Level 0 but happy to hear your thoughts should you try it out! Hope this helps!
Yes it's very helpful! You always go above and beyond with your answers and I really appreciate you taking the time. Thank you.
That sounds like an awesome level 0 adventure, and very well thought out.
It might be very hard to drag out that phase. But what I've been thinking about, based on a suggestion from one of my players, was spending more time with the characters as commoners. Just living their everyday lives. Very mundane challenges they face in the world. A broken plow, a festival to plan for, going to school. Maybe time jump to various scenes, stretching out over the years that lead them to the jobs they have and the skills they learn. Each year could have one significant event. It definitely would not be the game for everyone. But I guess you could say the concept would be to let them live out their backstory.
My player even posed the idea of ending the game when they reached level 1 and had their first real victory. It's an interesting concept. I imagine they might want to go further after all that time with the characters. Or they might be bored silly at that point haha. I've just been thinking about the mechanics of very slow advancement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Has anyone used the Skill Variants on pages 263-264 of the DMG in a game?
Examples they give are:
Ability Check Proficiency - where a character is proficient in every skill associated with one Ability Score, chosen from a list based on their class. Like a Rogue might be proficient in all Dexterity skills.
Background Proficiency - where a character is considered proficient in any roll that relates to their background. Like a farmer would be proficient in Wisdom rolls for handling farm animals, but not wild ones.
Personality Trait Proficiency - where a character is proficient in things related to their positive personality traits, and gets disadvantage on rolls impacted by their negative trait. Like a shrewd but absent-minded character getting a bonus when rolling to negotiate a deal, but a penalty when recalling the name of the person they dealt with later.
These rules are meant to be used instead of the normal skill proficiencies, not in addition to them. And they have special ways to handle expertise.
I'm especially interested in Background Proficiencies and think it could be really fun. I can see some challenges though too. So I was curious if anyone had ever tried any of them and what your experience was with them.
I have not used the variants in the DMG that you reference, however, I did add over 10 custom skills to my homebrew game. And since these skills are in addition, I used backstory to award proficiency. Some examples:
Just a few examples that you might find interesting! In short, I would definitely explore the Background Proficiency, as it is very immersive and distinctive.
Oh those are cool. I like the idea of background proficiencies that fit the campaign. And it's always nice to see a Constitution proficiency! Some of these definitely fill in some black spots in the normal rules. I especially like Culture being Wisdom based and something to roll other than History.
I'm very curious to try the Background Proficiency skill variant, but I know it will take a particular kind of group and game. It's probably not for everyone. I can see some discussions needed up front and heavy buy in from the group. But I can also imagine it being a very immersive experience that gets people thinking about their characters as people with a past more. I've been thinking of a game that starts at level 0 and has very slow progression that it might suit very well.
Thanks for the feedback and cool ideas!
Absolutely. If you are looking for another Constitution skill, I also have Fitness (Con) in my game. Essentially, Fitness checks are made in place of raw Constitution checks to determine exhaustion levels. For example, I think the highly fit barbarian who is known to travel long distances over his nomadic life should be able to add a proficiency bonus to checks made to resist fatigue from traveling longer than 8 hours in a day.
Culture is very fun and highly flavorful. And, just to note, I do separate all of the knowledge based on skill check. Let's say the party comes across a an old short sword, rusted and half-buried, while traveling through a mountain pass. A Wisdom (Culture) check might determine that this blade is actually of drow make, given the curvature and erosion of the blade from exposure to the sun. From that, someone proficient in history could make an Intelligence (History) check to recall that an infamous dark elf battle was fought in this pass two decades ago - meaning there could be an active Underdark entrance nearby. This could raise tension and set the party back on their heels a bit as they proceed with caution. Perhaps they even come across some markings etched into the stone a bit later - a character proficient is Decipher Script could determine that it's indeed written in Undercommon and it appears to be recent.
Funny you should say that you are thinking of a campaign that starts at Level 0. That's what I did for my current campaign. All PCs started as Commoners and had to work through the first two or three sessions as aspirants of their desired class. It was great!
Appraisal and Decipher Script are the only ones in this list that are understandable.
Steel Gut already exists in the game. It's called a Con Saving Throw.
Gather Information already exists in the game. It's called Investigation.
Culture should be Intelligence.
Spellcraft already exists in the game. It's called Arcana.
You're way overcomplicating skills. I mean, if you find it fun, go for it. Whatever works. Just wouldn't be the advice I'd give.
---
Anyways, to the main topic. There can be many ways you might call for a different ability for a skill check. For instance, perhaps your attempt to persuade somebody is rooted in the facts and logical presentation - that would be Intelligence (Persuasion) check. Maybe an attempt to intimidate somebody is making a shallow cut on your forearm without flinching - staring at the target with a gleeful grin, well that's gonna be Constitution (Intimidation). Or perhaps instead they use their muscles or punch right through a wooden table to convince somebody not to mess with you, why that's Strength (Intimidation).
And of course, if you're a spellcasting wanting to play or understand more about your own magic there's Spellcasting Ability (Arcana).
Or maybe you want to improv a poem that is entirely based on a purely clever use of historic facts with clever wordplay? That could be Intelligence (Performance).
Juggling would be Dexterity (Performance).
Wanting to taste a poisoned drink or meal to convince somebody it's safe to eat? Constitution (Deception).
I never feel restricted to a particular ability score for any skill checks, the default is a nice go to but it should not be restricted. And many groups operate this way - and have done, in my experience, since the days of 3rd edition. So none of this is a new concept in any way. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
You've misread the skills above actually.
Steel Gut is meant to add proficiency to certain character types, instead of just a raw Con save. By your logic, we shouldn't have any skills then. Why make an Acorbatics check? Just make a Dex check/save. This style doesn't work for me, nor do I think others would find that fun. I think skills should be broken down for greater immersion and character depth. Since there are really no Con skills, I think this helps flavor characters even more. A Con modifier helps, but just like the other skills, certain characters should be entitled to proficiency/expertise if it fits.
Gather Information is not investigation. Gather Information is used to learn things in a social context - rumors, secrets, and things that NPCs keep to themselves or only talk about in certain circumstances or to people (PCs) that can convince them. Investigation is a better eye for detail, uncovering clues and puzzle pieces, or researching in tomes and libraries. Two completely different skills, which is why one is Intelligence and one is Charisma. A learned wizard might uncover certain knowledge poring over a dusty tome in the library, while a bard throws a party for the nobility and learns another vital piece of information that only a charismatic person could. And, to clarify, this is not Persuasion either.
I can see an argument for Culture being Intelligence, but attribute the Wisdom of having absorbed other cultures through experience as the key factor.
Spellcraft is not Arcana. Arcana is recalling lore about the planes or identifying types of spells, etc. Spellcraft is the physical manipulation of spell energy. As I stated in my example, trying to mildly enhance a certain spell would be spellcraft - your practice in amplifying mystical effects, not trying to recall your factual knowledge of the arcane.
It's really not that complicated. I actually can't think of a more simpler way to explain it. I will say though that it is only for highly immersive/experienced campaigns. I wouldn't suggest anyone implement these until they have a handle on the raw rules first.
Thanks for the feedback everyone.
Zyrrel, do you mind sharing how you ran your level 0 characters? I have seen a few suggestions from people but they tend to be intended for rather short periods of time spent before leveling up to a real class. I was thinking of spending longer in the novice phase, if I found a group interested in it.
Cyb3rM1nd, those are great examples. I do like the flexibility of the standard system. I'm afraid I don't usually find these situations come up very often though. That is likely my fault as the DM more than the players. It's instinctual in the moment to just call for 'a Persuasion check' rather than think about if a different ability could apply. And usually the alternatives are more useful in edge cases. You could juggle extremely well with Dexterity, but not put on a very entertaining show. While a charismatic juggler could drop a few balls and still enthral an audience. It depends on what they're trying to achieve in the moment.
This is why I was interested in some of the variants in the DMG, especially Background Proficiencies. Basically it would force every roll to be a judgement call. I would have to think more about what ability score to use, and if their background is applicable, on a case by case basis. And the players would have to lean into their character's story more if they want to be more successful at checks. Because you never apply a proficiency bonus except when it matches your backstory. It removes the broad catch-all named skills entirely.
Essentially this variant deletes all of the skills from your character sheet. You just have your 6 ability scores and a story. If you attempt something that your story says you are good at, you add your proficiency bonus to that roll. So, for example, if you are playing a barbarian from a group of nomads in the frozen tundra, that grew up herding animals and hunting on horseback, you might:
Add your proficiency bonus to riding horses and handling livestock, but not for taming a tiger.
Add your proficiency bonus for tracking animals stealthily in the snow and grasslands, but not for tracking a thief in the city.
Add your proficiency bonus for enduring the cold on a mountaintop, but not the heat of a jungle.
Add your proficiency bonus for performing the dances of your tribe, but not the waltz at a noble's ball.
Add your proficiency bonus to making stone arrows, but not forging a steel longsword.
The idea really appeals to me, for greater immersion, more intuitive results to skill checks, and forcing me to flex my creativity with the rules. I can see some potential drawbacks though. Players might spend too much time debating if their background applies. It might be too vague. Classes that get more skill proficiencies as a bonus feature would need some kind of compensation. And so on. But these could all be unfounded concerns if you have the right group of players. I was curious if anyone had tried this variant and what their experience was. I've never heard it talked about anywhere.
I think it is definitely worth trying. Anything that promotes more distinction between characters is a win in my book. I agree that the "umbrella" skills can mesh characters too much. Why would learning how to track elk in the tundra automatically make you proficient in all things "Survival"? I'd give it a shot - and I would imagine the players would find it appealing and not spend time bantering over whether their backstory applies - so long as they are invested in their backstory. As an additional note, I always reinforce the idea of a Level 0 backstory. Players naturally gravitate to heroics when thinking of their PCs but if you encourage them to write backstories that equate with the deeds of a commoner, the game becomes more fun. There is a saying: "What's the best way to obtain a super powerful magic item (or item of similar value) in D&D? Put it in your backstory." If you outlaw this altogether, the leveling up experience is much more rewarding and skills will be far easier to track. The PC who spent his backstory herding elk across the tundra has very obvious and limited skills compared to the sage who traveled to four different continents and intermingled with all kinds of creatures before Level 1.
As for starting the campaign at Level 0, I will say that we did not do it for very long. The players were only Level 0 for about three sessions. The way I ran it was more narrative than mechanical, but it has had some lasting benefits, and it has come with some surprises! For example:
Level 0 Start
I'm not too sure how long you could conceivably keep characters at Level 0 but happy to hear your thoughts should you try it out! Hope this helps!
Yes it's very helpful! You always go above and beyond with your answers and I really appreciate you taking the time. Thank you.
That sounds like an awesome level 0 adventure, and very well thought out.
It might be very hard to drag out that phase. But what I've been thinking about, based on a suggestion from one of my players, was spending more time with the characters as commoners. Just living their everyday lives. Very mundane challenges they face in the world. A broken plow, a festival to plan for, going to school. Maybe time jump to various scenes, stretching out over the years that lead them to the jobs they have and the skills they learn. Each year could have one significant event. It definitely would not be the game for everyone. But I guess you could say the concept would be to let them live out their backstory.
My player even posed the idea of ending the game when they reached level 1 and had their first real victory. It's an interesting concept. I imagine they might want to go further after all that time with the characters. Or they might be bored silly at that point haha. I've just been thinking about the mechanics of very slow advancement.