So I always tell people that, I am a huge fan of 5e. I think they did an amazing job of making the game easy for people to pick up and just start playing. However, over time I and the people I play with have felt that skills are kind of lackluster. I remember in 3 and 3.5 where the party felt specialized in doing something, that seems lost in the 5e rules though.
For example, in 3.5 I used to play a fighter, I could pick a lock, nothing was stopping me, but I didn't really invest anything into to so for me to do it seemed ridiculous. That feels lost in 5e. In 5e both a fighter and a rogue may have a high dex because of their build, let's say 16 dex at level 1. The fighter does not gain access to thieve's tools, the rogue does. The fighters chance of picking a lock is d20 + 3 where the rogue's in d20 + 5. Now I am not going to lie, that +2 has made the difference a few times, but in all of our playing it never felt like it was a make it or break it kind of thing. Maybe I am just a bad DM. But the skills in 5e don't make a character feel specialized in something. It just makes them slightly better (Which is the point I guess). But we started talking about it as a group and wanted to make skills feel more important and specialized.
As we talked we had a few different idea's which I'll list below. We are curious to hear your feedback or idea's you may have had to make skills feel Special.
The first thing brought up was to apply kinda a reverse Proficiency bonus that would work backward. So at level one if you are not proficient in a skill you would apply a negative modifier. For example at level 1 it would be a -5, at level 5 it would be -4, at level 10 it would be -3, at level 15 it would be -2. The idea behind this was at level one your really only good at what you are good at, you can do other things, but you've never really tried them. But as you adventure you would pick up tricks from the rogue or ranger that would make you understand how a lock works or how to track animals. You would never be as good at them, but you wouldn't be as terrible as you started.
The second idea wasn't really for skills, but more for tools and the idea was to say if you are not proficient with tools you can't make a skill check using them. For example, you couldn't attempt to pick a lock if you were not proficient in thieve's tools because you have no idea how they work. We did discuss apply this to skills as well but felt that it would break the game instead of making it feel like skills were specialized. We liked the logic for tools, but it kinda broke down when we applied it outside of them.
Lastly and probably the simplest was if you were not proficient in a skill or tool you made the check at disadvantage. This topic was brought up at the end of our discussion and we really didn't have time to develop the idea any further than that.
So I am curious, have you tried to homebrew skills to make them feel more special? If so what did you do and how did it work? How do our idea's sound do they sound like they would break the game in an unplayable manner? Any suggestions on improving them? Do you have any idea's you have tried that sound like a cool way to make skills feel more special?
For example, in 3.5 I used to play a fighter, I could pick a lock, nothing was stopping me, but I didn't really invest anything into to so for me to do it seemed ridiculous. That feels lost in 5e. In 5e both a fighter and a rogue may have a high dex because of their build, let's say 16 dex at level 1. The fighter does not gain access to thieve's tools, the rogue does.
I can understand where you're coming from, but don't yet have a solution. Bounded accuracy implies that there must be less variance in skill bonuses among characters. I just want to nitpick a little here because rogue's expertise can make the gap much more substantial.
I fully understand where you're coming from, as I tried to describe my group had a fairly long talk about this and tried to think of creative ways to stay within the 5e mechanics while also trying to make skills feel more special. I probably should have used another class like ranger and fighter and compared something like survival.
Because I do agree that expertise does make skills feel special, my problem with it is that it isn't easily obtainable outside of rogue and bard to make all characters feel like they are uniquely good at a skill. I am aware of classes that get "expertise" in skills such as knowledge domain cleric. When I am referring to easily obtainable, I mean the play can freely choose.
Actually, we discussed allowing all Characters to choose two expertise skills, but the issue was we didn't want to give the bards and rogues additional expertise. Because it would defeat the purpose because then those two players would be "special" at way too many things. And it felt wrong to say, well you choose that class, so you kinda screwed yourself.
It's a complex thing to figure out, I was actually surprised that my searching of the forums didn't bring up any discussions like this. I know we can't be the only ones that feel like the bounded accuracy system makes skills specifically feel less special than they did in previous editions.
We are just going to playtest our idea's out and see if either of them seem to work. The reverse proficiency bonus system or the disadvantage if not proficient are really the only two things we can think of without re-working the entire skill system from the ground up. Those are easy plug and play that can even be used within D&D beyond with some manual overrides.
Right, again the issue is mostly bounded accuracy. In previous editions, skill proficiency manifested at later levels by accomplishing tasks that other characters couldn't, no matter how high the roll. In 5e, without magical items, with a maximum +5 ability score bonus and +6 proficiency bonus, the highest DC a character could hit is 31, whereas in 3e, DCs in the 40s and 50s occasionally come up at higher levels (or with enough floating modifiers). Epic level situations with heaps of magic items could push fair DCs over 80-90, although at that point the influence of the d20 is very small next to amassing floating modifiers. Thankfully, advantage in 5e (as opposed to floating modifiers in <=4e) doesn't enable a character to hit a DC out of their normal range of DCs, ie. advantage couldn't allow a fighter with the same stats as the above, but without proficiency, to hit a DC above 26.
My suggestion is mostly for the DM. Take a look at PC stats. Set DCs strategically out of the range of the least skilled party-members where appropriate. That'll let the stars shine in their respective domains.
Dexterity McSneakyThief, 16 DEX, proficient from rogue, 1d20 + 5
Then either of the last two can choose expertise (either as rogue or part of an ASI) to instead be 1d20 + 7
So at first level, depending on concept, you have characters that range from +1 (I shouldn't be doing this) to +7 (I am really good at this)
At low level +2 from proficient isn't a lot, but you are also only level 1. The difference in ability gets bigger as you level, and doubly so with expertise.
I think just allowing Expertise on a feat (along with something else, like + 1 ability score) might solve your problem.
There is already a human feat for that from Xanathar. It gives expertise + 2 proficiency (one in a skill, one in a tool), and a language.
Creating a feat that is expertise +1 ability score would probably be too interesting, and most humans would even prefer taking this one than their own racial version.
Dexterity McSneakyThief, 16 DEX, proficient from rogue, 1d20 + 5
Then either of the last two can choose expertise (either as rogue or part of an ASI) to instead be 1d20 + 7
So at first level, depending on concept, you have characters that range from +1 (I shouldn't be doing this) to +7 (I am really good at this)
At low level +2 from proficient isn't a lot, but you are also only level 1. The difference in ability gets bigger as you level, and doubly so with expertise.
What if you are not someone who can gain expertise at level one? I really disliked the idea of saying everyone gets expertise because it either makes the rogues/bards way to powerful skill-wise because a level 1 rogue would than have 4 skills they have expertise in. And saying if you choose rogue you don't get it.
As for your example's let's get away from rogue because I really don't want expertise to be a factor in this system. For the example lets once again use a fighter and a ranger. For whatever reason the fighter and the ranger both have a score of 16 in Wisdom, let's say the fighter is proficient in Survival because he grew up in the wild and off the land, however, this particular ranger was mostly raised in a city and never really got out.
That means currently are fighters score is as 1d20 + 3 and are rangers is 1d20 + 5. Now let us say I ask them both to go hunt wild game, this is something the fighter should be great at, following tracks, finding and stalking the animal and getting the kill. Though something the ranger never really did and has no experience in (he did not take survival as his ability).
The fighter on average should roll something like 16 and the ranger should on an average roll a 13. Let's say the DC is something like 10 because it's hunting its not an impossible task but it's not an easy task either. That means on average the ranger is going to do just as good at something the fighter is trained to do. That just seems wrong.
Now don't get me wrong, you are right, as you level up the range will expand and make characters feel more unique, but that seems kinda backward to me. I have been hunting a lot in my life, if I go out there is a decent chance I'll come back with something when my roommate came with me last season he barely got anything, we're hoping for better results this year.
Maybe the solution to this is just added 5 to everything, so very easy is a 10, easy is a 15, medium is a 20, hard is a 25, very hard is a 30 and nearly impossible is 35.
As for your last sentence, you are correct "At low level +2 from proficient isn't a lot, but you are also only level 1. The difference in ability gets bigger as you level, and doubly so with expertise." you are correct, as you level up you become better and better at something, but if I am being honest that makes even less sense to me. Since to me, because you could never use that skill where the ranger uses it every time and unless the DM rewards that player for doing that he is never going to get proficient with that skill. In older systems, if I felt like I wanted to get better at a skill when I leveled up I could sink points into it and feel like I improved. There is no mechanic in the game to do that in 5e. If you are bad at a skill you never get good at it no matter how often you use it.
Also, feats are variant rules we don't always play with, nor do we often play campaigns that last past level 12. We rotate Game masters, Settings and even worlds. We get to tell new stories and have new adventures and learn new things about our new characters. Waiting until end game to feel special in a skill seems like bad game design.
Yes, I am aware that changing the skills system is more than a variant rule, but its something we want to do to make our characters feel more specialized in a skill. Just like sometimes we want to play with feats so we allow them. We want to figure out a new mechanic to make skills feel more unique to the characters.
The problem with the tool thing is, it makes everyone need full blown proficiency to do even basic things. I couldn't imagine trying to stat anyone from a primitive culture using such rules. You'd need to take like umpteen million tool proficiency just for basic living. I mean, really, are you telling me people need proficiency in cooks utensils to cook? Weaver's tools to sew buttons back on garments? Full blown proficiency in cards to play cards?
I mean you have to consider that people originally discovered these skills by getting ideas and trying new things. So you don't need training to try and eventually succeed. Most people are starting with a leg up in that they at least know these skills exist, and have some vague idea how to start trying. Most people can cook, and some can even make a decent meal, but it doesn't make people a full blown chef, but even mediocre cooks occasionally find something they're good at cooking. You can learn to play cards in a day, and even a new player can win several games, but what makes a card shark is doing so more often and when it counts.
Now I personally don't like the way D&D does skills in the sense there's like you said, no real clear distinction between different proficiency levels, especially with tools.
What I would do if I cared to create a detailed system, is open up special actions you can do once you unlock a different skill level. I also would have kind of like you do, several level of non proficient to represent no effing clue, I have an idea, and I've gotten a bit of training or practice and understanding doing this. This would be more for tools. As for skills, most of them are things anyone can attempt to do to some degree. Every Tom, Dick and Harry has played hide and seek at some point in their lives, are you honestly telling me people should start at completely incompetent for... trying to be quiet and perceiving their general environment? That it takes special training to have any real chance to succeed at these things?
Yes, the tool idea doesn't really work, as I said in the OP "We liked the logic for tools, but it kinda broke down when we applied it outside of them.".
We also weren't also talking about basic tools, we were talking about painters, mason, smithing, thieves' tools. We were not really a fan of the tools Idea once it got applied to things outside of that area, it really started to break as you said, because then what are we going to call a tool. Are dice a tool?
As for your last paragraph, that was are the whole problem with using the "you can't do that logic" because everyone has a basic idea of how hiding and searching goes. But not everyone has a basic idea of how lock picking works. We completely agree with your stance on this being a very bad way to help us solve our problem.
Please keep in mind, that the three ideas listed in the OP are separate ideas, not three idea's we wanted to use all at once.
Currently, we are looking to favor the reverse proficiency bonus, the idea being, yes you can hide, but you've never really hidden from someone trying to kill you. The stacks are much higher and you are not as good at it yet. But as you level up you get better so that negative starts to decrease until it is 0 (or -2).
Another one of us, is going to try building a skill point system similar to 3rd edition, but that is going to require how DC's work through the game (which isn't a terrible issue since we mostly play homebrew campagins). But we're not sure how it'll work within the 5e setting.
The fighter on average should roll something like 16 and the ranger should on an average roll a 13. Let's say the DC is something like 10 because it's hunting its not an impossible task but it's not an easy task either. That means on average the ranger is going to do just as good at something the fighter is trained to do. That just seems wrong.
Now don't get me wrong, you are right, as you level up the range will expand and make characters feel more unique, but that seems kinda backward to me. I have been hunting a lot in my life, if I go out there is a decent chance I'll come back with something when my roommate came with me last season he barely got anything, we're hoping for better results this year.
I used to have the same issue as well. The way I solved is that I will sometimes ask to be proficient in the skill to even be allowed to roll. Or maybe being proficient will have different results.
For instance, let's keep survival, and this time, it's about tracking an easy set of tracks. For non-proficient, maybe i'll have something like the classic fail/succeed to follow the tracks, whereas proficient WILL succeed, but the check could give him a bit more, such as information about the beasts, a stealthier approach as they near the cave, or something along the line.
And sometimes, I don't discriminate. If it's about hunting for diner, a ranger with a good wisdom should not find it that much more difficult than our fighter who had experience with it.
Finally, i believe that 5e encourages us to grant benefits freely, if hunting is that prevalent in our fighter's backstory, you should feel free to give him advantage.
So I always tell people that, I am a huge fan of 5e. I think they did an amazing job of making the game easy for people to pick up and just start playing. However, over time I and the people I play with have felt that skills are kind of lackluster. I remember in 3 and 3.5 where the party felt specialized in doing something, that seems lost in the 5e rules though.
For example, in 3.5 I used to play a fighter, I could pick a lock, nothing was stopping me, but I didn't really invest anything into to so for me to do it seemed ridiculous. That feels lost in 5e. In 5e both a fighter and a rogue may have a high dex because of their build, let's say 16 dex at level 1. The fighter does not gain access to thieve's tools, the rogue does. The fighters chance of picking a lock is d20 + 3 where the rogue's in d20 + 5. Now I am not going to lie, that +2 has made the difference a few times, but in all of our playing it never felt like it was a make it or break it kind of thing. Maybe I am just a bad DM. But the skills in 5e don't make a character feel specialized in something. It just makes them slightly better (Which is the point I guess). But we started talking about it as a group and wanted to make skills feel more important and specialized.
As we talked we had a few different idea's which I'll list below. We are curious to hear your feedback or idea's you may have had to make skills feel Special.
The first thing brought up was to apply kinda a reverse Proficiency bonus that would work backward. So at level one if you are not proficient in a skill you would apply a negative modifier. For example at level 1 it would be a -5, at level 5 it would be -4, at level 10 it would be -3, at level 15 it would be -2. The idea behind this was at level one your really only good at what you are good at, you can do other things, but you've never really tried them. But as you adventure you would pick up tricks from the rogue or ranger that would make you understand how a lock works or how to track animals. You would never be as good at them, but you wouldn't be as terrible as you started.
The second idea wasn't really for skills, but more for tools and the idea was to say if you are not proficient with tools you can't make a skill check using them. For example, you couldn't attempt to pick a lock if you were not proficient in thieve's tools because you have no idea how they work. We did discuss apply this to skills as well but felt that it would break the game instead of making it feel like skills were specialized. We liked the logic for tools, but it kinda broke down when we applied it outside of them.
Lastly and probably the simplest was if you were not proficient in a skill or tool you made the check at disadvantage. This topic was brought up at the end of our discussion and we really didn't have time to develop the idea any further than that.
So I am curious, have you tried to homebrew skills to make them feel more special? If so what did you do and how did it work? How do our idea's sound do they sound like they would break the game in an unplayable manner? Any suggestions on improving them? Do you have any idea's you have tried that sound like a cool way to make skills feel more special?
I can understand where you're coming from, but don't yet have a solution. Bounded accuracy implies that there must be less variance in skill bonuses among characters. I just want to nitpick a little here because rogue's expertise can make the gap much more substantial.
I fully understand where you're coming from, as I tried to describe my group had a fairly long talk about this and tried to think of creative ways to stay within the 5e mechanics while also trying to make skills feel more special. I probably should have used another class like ranger and fighter and compared something like survival.
Because I do agree that expertise does make skills feel special, my problem with it is that it isn't easily obtainable outside of rogue and bard to make all characters feel like they are uniquely good at a skill. I am aware of classes that get "expertise" in skills such as knowledge domain cleric. When I am referring to easily obtainable, I mean the play can freely choose.
Actually, we discussed allowing all Characters to choose two expertise skills, but the issue was we didn't want to give the bards and rogues additional expertise. Because it would defeat the purpose because then those two players would be "special" at way too many things. And it felt wrong to say, well you choose that class, so you kinda screwed yourself.
It's a complex thing to figure out, I was actually surprised that my searching of the forums didn't bring up any discussions like this. I know we can't be the only ones that feel like the bounded accuracy system makes skills specifically feel less special than they did in previous editions.
We are just going to playtest our idea's out and see if either of them seem to work. The reverse proficiency bonus system or the disadvantage if not proficient are really the only two things we can think of without re-working the entire skill system from the ground up. Those are easy plug and play that can even be used within D&D beyond with some manual overrides.
Right, again the issue is mostly bounded accuracy. In previous editions, skill proficiency manifested at later levels by accomplishing tasks that other characters couldn't, no matter how high the roll. In 5e, without magical items, with a maximum +5 ability score bonus and +6 proficiency bonus, the highest DC a character could hit is 31, whereas in 3e, DCs in the 40s and 50s occasionally come up at higher levels (or with enough floating modifiers). Epic level situations with heaps of magic items could push fair DCs over 80-90, although at that point the influence of the d20 is very small next to amassing floating modifiers. Thankfully, advantage in 5e (as opposed to floating modifiers in <=4e) doesn't enable a character to hit a DC out of their normal range of DCs, ie. advantage couldn't allow a fighter with the same stats as the above, but without proficiency, to hit a DC above 26.
My suggestion is mostly for the DM. Take a look at PC stats. Set DCs strategically out of the range of the least skilled party-members where appropriate. That'll let the stars shine in their respective domains.
I think just allowing Expertise on a feat (along with something else, like + 1 ability score) might solve your problem.
So:
So at first level, depending on concept, you have characters that range from +1 (I shouldn't be doing this) to +7 (I am really good at this)
At low level +2 from proficient isn't a lot, but you are also only level 1. The difference in ability gets bigger as you level, and doubly so with expertise.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
There is already a human feat for that from Xanathar. It gives expertise + 2 proficiency (one in a skill, one in a tool), and a language.
Creating a feat that is expertise +1 ability score would probably be too interesting, and most humans would even prefer taking this one than their own racial version.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
I really should have used a different example other than thieve's tools because people are really sticking to that example.
What if you are not someone who can gain expertise at level one? I really disliked the idea of saying everyone gets expertise because it either makes the rogues/bards way to powerful skill-wise because a level 1 rogue would than have 4 skills they have expertise in. And saying if you choose rogue you don't get it.
As for your example's let's get away from rogue because I really don't want expertise to be a factor in this system. For the example lets once again use a fighter and a ranger. For whatever reason the fighter and the ranger both have a score of 16 in Wisdom, let's say the fighter is proficient in Survival because he grew up in the wild and off the land, however, this particular ranger was mostly raised in a city and never really got out.
That means currently are fighters score is as 1d20 + 3 and are rangers is 1d20 + 5. Now let us say I ask them both to go hunt wild game, this is something the fighter should be great at, following tracks, finding and stalking the animal and getting the kill. Though something the ranger never really did and has no experience in (he did not take survival as his ability).
The fighter on average should roll something like 16 and the ranger should on an average roll a 13. Let's say the DC is something like 10 because it's hunting its not an impossible task but it's not an easy task either. That means on average the ranger is going to do just as good at something the fighter is trained to do. That just seems wrong.
Now don't get me wrong, you are right, as you level up the range will expand and make characters feel more unique, but that seems kinda backward to me. I have been hunting a lot in my life, if I go out there is a decent chance I'll come back with something when my roommate came with me last season he barely got anything, we're hoping for better results this year.
Maybe the solution to this is just added 5 to everything, so very easy is a 10, easy is a 15, medium is a 20, hard is a 25, very hard is a 30 and nearly impossible is 35.
As for your last sentence, you are correct "At low level +2 from proficient isn't a lot, but you are also only level 1. The difference in ability gets bigger as you level, and doubly so with expertise." you are correct, as you level up you become better and better at something, but if I am being honest that makes even less sense to me. Since to me, because you could never use that skill where the ranger uses it every time and unless the DM rewards that player for doing that he is never going to get proficient with that skill. In older systems, if I felt like I wanted to get better at a skill when I leveled up I could sink points into it and feel like I improved. There is no mechanic in the game to do that in 5e. If you are bad at a skill you never get good at it no matter how often you use it.
Also, feats are variant rules we don't always play with, nor do we often play campaigns that last past level 12. We rotate Game masters, Settings and even worlds. We get to tell new stories and have new adventures and learn new things about our new characters. Waiting until end game to feel special in a skill seems like bad game design.
Yes, I am aware that changing the skills system is more than a variant rule, but its something we want to do to make our characters feel more specialized in a skill. Just like sometimes we want to play with feats so we allow them. We want to figure out a new mechanic to make skills feel more unique to the characters.
The problem with the tool thing is, it makes everyone need full blown proficiency to do even basic things. I couldn't imagine trying to stat anyone from a primitive culture using such rules. You'd need to take like umpteen million tool proficiency just for basic living. I mean, really, are you telling me people need proficiency in cooks utensils to cook? Weaver's tools to sew buttons back on garments? Full blown proficiency in cards to play cards?
I mean you have to consider that people originally discovered these skills by getting ideas and trying new things. So you don't need training to try and eventually succeed. Most people are starting with a leg up in that they at least know these skills exist, and have some vague idea how to start trying. Most people can cook, and some can even make a decent meal, but it doesn't make people a full blown chef, but even mediocre cooks occasionally find something they're good at cooking. You can learn to play cards in a day, and even a new player can win several games, but what makes a card shark is doing so more often and when it counts.
Now I personally don't like the way D&D does skills in the sense there's like you said, no real clear distinction between different proficiency levels, especially with tools.
What I would do if I cared to create a detailed system, is open up special actions you can do once you unlock a different skill level. I also would have kind of like you do, several level of non proficient to represent no effing clue, I have an idea, and I've gotten a bit of training or practice and understanding doing this. This would be more for tools. As for skills, most of them are things anyone can attempt to do to some degree. Every Tom, Dick and Harry has played hide and seek at some point in their lives, are you honestly telling me people should start at completely incompetent for... trying to be quiet and perceiving their general environment? That it takes special training to have any real chance to succeed at these things?
Yes, the tool idea doesn't really work, as I said in the OP "We liked the logic for tools, but it kinda broke down when we applied it outside of them.".
We also weren't also talking about basic tools, we were talking about painters, mason, smithing, thieves' tools. We were not really a fan of the tools Idea once it got applied to things outside of that area, it really started to break as you said, because then what are we going to call a tool. Are dice a tool?
As for your last paragraph, that was are the whole problem with using the "you can't do that logic" because everyone has a basic idea of how hiding and searching goes. But not everyone has a basic idea of how lock picking works. We completely agree with your stance on this being a very bad way to help us solve our problem.
Please keep in mind, that the three ideas listed in the OP are separate ideas, not three idea's we wanted to use all at once.
Currently, we are looking to favor the reverse proficiency bonus, the idea being, yes you can hide, but you've never really hidden from someone trying to kill you. The stacks are much higher and you are not as good at it yet. But as you level up you get better so that negative starts to decrease until it is 0 (or -2).
Another one of us, is going to try building a skill point system similar to 3rd edition, but that is going to require how DC's work through the game (which isn't a terrible issue since we mostly play homebrew campagins). But we're not sure how it'll work within the 5e setting.
I used to have the same issue as well. The way I solved is that I will sometimes ask to be proficient in the skill to even be allowed to roll. Or maybe being proficient will have different results.
For instance, let's keep survival, and this time, it's about tracking an easy set of tracks. For non-proficient, maybe i'll have something like the classic fail/succeed to follow the tracks, whereas proficient WILL succeed, but the check could give him a bit more, such as information about the beasts, a stealthier approach as they near the cave, or something along the line.
And sometimes, I don't discriminate. If it's about hunting for diner, a ranger with a good wisdom should not find it that much more difficult than our fighter who had experience with it.
Finally, i believe that 5e encourages us to grant benefits freely, if hunting is that prevalent in our fighter's backstory, you should feel free to give him advantage.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!