I am not a fan of the skill system in D&D. I have looked at point systems but honestly, no idea how balanced they are with the base game (meaning do they break the game overall and/or make the skill system too trivial?)
I role-playing game needs a skill system (at least something) to manage the out of combat "stuff" that happens.
My main issue with the skill system is the knowledge skills and the fact that they are ALL based on Intelligence. At first blush this makes sense, intelligence being a reflection of your IQ or memory capability. It just doesn't "play" very well.
So to my questions:
1) Has anyone tried making class skills based on your primary stat? For example, Druid's primary stat is Wisdom so for the 2 class skills he/she/it can select at first level, those two skills are based on Wisdom. Unselected skills are left as is. Would that break the game?
2) or Leave the skill stat alone and give the player advantage on the two skills chosen at first level. Being a marker of the fact that as they grew into a first level character, those skills are the ones they focused on and hence know the most about it.
3) Or something else other than skill point system, any ideas?
It seems odd to me that a druid or cleric player would need to pump stats points (if using a point buy) into INT to reflect they knew a great deal about Nature or Religion.
To start, this is actually an overall boon for the game. Part of D&D is that it is a social game where an entire party is supposed to get together to form a cohesive unit. Making it so each attribute (other than Constitution) has a few areas they excel in ensures every player has a chance to shine - the intelligence character will shine when knowledge is needed, but they cannot as easily steal the show when, say, dexterity or charisma is necessary.
That said, the game also recognizes that there might be situations where you want to take into account other builds. That is why there are three specific mechanisms for offsetting lack of a specific attribute built into the game itself:
1. Proficiency/expertise - this will not fully catch you up to someone with proficiency/expertise and the attribute, but it will make you semi-functional at the skill, provided you did not dump the attribute.
2. Situational advantage (or feats or traits that explicitly give advantage) - A DM can confer advantage on a knowledge role if the character making the role might have some specific experience that might make them more likely to have that information. Some features or traits might even specifically enumerate times situational advantage should be applied.
3. Attribute-swapped rolls - The rules explicitly allow the DM to call for a check with skills other than the attribute’s base skill. For example, maybe a history check to recall a certain piece of music could be a History (Charisma) check instead of the normal History (Intelligence) check. These rolls are done by substituting the attribute and, if proficient, adding proficiency.
Overall, is it is a perfect system? Perhaps not - but it does a good job ensuring every member of the group has opportunities to be involved and baked in mitigating factors when the DM believes it is appropriate. I think it does a pretty decent job as-is balancing a complex set of factors, and does not really need much in the way of improvement (though, DMs could stand to use points 2 and 3 more—especially point 3, which many DMs seem to ignore the existence of).
Edit: The 2024 cleric rules explicitly allow clerics to use Wisdom instead of Intelligence for Religion checks, so that issue you raised was explicitly fixed.
I am not a fan of the skill system in D&D. I have looked at point systems but honestly, no idea how balanced they are with the base game (meaning do they break the game overall and/or make the skill system too trivial?)
I role-playing game needs a skill system (at least something) to manage the out of combat "stuff" that happens.
I'd argue that 5e's skill system is more or less what you want in a game like D&D -- It's simple, and the skills are broad enough to cover most of the situations that come up in play.
Anything better would likely come at the cost of making the skill more complicated than a combat-forward game like D&D wants.
My main issue with the skill system is the knowledge skills and the fact that they are ALL based on Intelligence. At first blush this makes sense, intelligence being a reflection of your IQ or memory capability.
If you look at what it's used for, Int is really the "knowledge" stat. What we think of as 'intelligence', inasmuch as it's quantified at all, is really spread over all three of the mental stats.
It just doesn't "play" very well.
Mostly what it means is that Int can't be a dump stat for everybody but wizards. If your class skills were based on your primary stat, as you suggest, then players would be tempted to shove their worst stat into Int. With it, if you have somebody who's supposed to be knowledgeable, Int has to be in the mix.
So to my questions:
1) Has anyone tried making class skills based on your primary stat? For example, Druid's primary stat is Wisdom so for the 2 class skills he/she/it can select at first level, those two skills are based on Wisdom. Unselected skills are left as is. Would that break the game?
They sort of did this in the new revision. Some clerics and druids get to add their wisdom bonus to some skill checks. Barbarians get to bump some skill checks (though mostly not knowledge) while raging. Fighters can boost their rolls on any failed skill check at a cost. Several classes have expertise, which easily makes up for a less-than-maximum Int stat.
As Caerwyn points out there are ways around the ‘intel only” mind set for knowledge skills. However, when you choose to dump intelligence you do need to then play that dump in your ROLEplaying. That means either accepting fairly frequent fails or selecting skills that are not normally based on intelligence. So perception ( wisdom based) instead of investigation (intelligence based), animal handling stead of alchemy, etc. it’s also your responsibility to to remind/request the DM use a different stat for specific rolls.
It seems odd to me that a druid or cleric player would need to pump stats points (if using a point buy) into INT to reflect they knew a great deal about Nature or Religion.
I would turn it around and ask why should a character who isn't very intelligent know a great deal about any topic?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am not a fan of the skill system in D&D. I have looked at point systems but honestly, no idea how balanced they are with the base game (meaning do they break the game overall and/or make the skill system too trivial?)
I role-playing game needs a skill system (at least something) to manage the out of combat "stuff" that happens.
My main issue with the skill system is the knowledge skills and the fact that they are ALL based on Intelligence. At first blush this makes sense, intelligence being a reflection of your IQ or memory capability. It just doesn't "play" very well.
So to my questions:
1) Has anyone tried making class skills based on your primary stat? For example, Druid's primary stat is Wisdom so for the 2 class skills he/she/it can select at first level, those two skills are based on Wisdom. Unselected skills are left as is. Would that break the game?
2) or Leave the skill stat alone and give the player advantage on the two skills chosen at first level. Being a marker of the fact that as they grew into a first level character, those skills are the ones they focused on and hence know the most about it.
3) Or something else other than skill point system, any ideas?
It seems odd to me that a druid or cleric player would need to pump stats points (if using a point buy) into INT to reflect they knew a great deal about Nature or Religion.
To start, this is actually an overall boon for the game. Part of D&D is that it is a social game where an entire party is supposed to get together to form a cohesive unit. Making it so each attribute (other than Constitution) has a few areas they excel in ensures every player has a chance to shine - the intelligence character will shine when knowledge is needed, but they cannot as easily steal the show when, say, dexterity or charisma is necessary.
That said, the game also recognizes that there might be situations where you want to take into account other builds. That is why there are three specific mechanisms for offsetting lack of a specific attribute built into the game itself:
1. Proficiency/expertise - this will not fully catch you up to someone with proficiency/expertise and the attribute, but it will make you semi-functional at the skill, provided you did not dump the attribute.
2. Situational advantage (or feats or traits that explicitly give advantage) - A DM can confer advantage on a knowledge role if the character making the role might have some specific experience that might make them more likely to have that information. Some features or traits might even specifically enumerate times situational advantage should be applied.
3. Attribute-swapped rolls - The rules explicitly allow the DM to call for a check with skills other than the attribute’s base skill. For example, maybe a history check to recall a certain piece of music could be a History (Charisma) check instead of the normal History (Intelligence) check. These rolls are done by substituting the attribute and, if proficient, adding proficiency.
Overall, is it is a perfect system? Perhaps not - but it does a good job ensuring every member of the group has opportunities to be involved and baked in mitigating factors when the DM believes it is appropriate. I think it does a pretty decent job as-is balancing a complex set of factors, and does not really need much in the way of improvement (though, DMs could stand to use points 2 and 3 more—especially point 3, which many DMs seem to ignore the existence of).
Edit: The 2024 cleric rules explicitly allow clerics to use Wisdom instead of Intelligence for Religion checks, so that issue you raised was explicitly fixed.
I'd argue that 5e's skill system is more or less what you want in a game like D&D -- It's simple, and the skills are broad enough to cover most of the situations that come up in play.
Anything better would likely come at the cost of making the skill more complicated than a combat-forward game like D&D wants.
If you look at what it's used for, Int is really the "knowledge" stat. What we think of as 'intelligence', inasmuch as it's quantified at all, is really spread over all three of the mental stats.
Mostly what it means is that Int can't be a dump stat for everybody but wizards. If your class skills were based on your primary stat, as you suggest, then players would be tempted to shove their worst stat into Int. With it, if you have somebody who's supposed to be knowledgeable, Int has to be in the mix.
They sort of did this in the new revision. Some clerics and druids get to add their wisdom bonus to some skill checks. Barbarians get to bump some skill checks (though mostly not knowledge) while raging. Fighters can boost their rolls on any failed skill check at a cost. Several classes have expertise, which easily makes up for a less-than-maximum Int stat.
Great points, I didn't know about the Cleric rule. Missed it in the rules. I will re-read that.
Thanks for your input.
As Caerwyn points out there are ways around the ‘intel only” mind set for knowledge skills. However, when you choose to dump intelligence you do need to then play that dump in your ROLEplaying. That means either accepting fairly frequent fails or selecting skills that are not normally based on intelligence. So perception ( wisdom based) instead of investigation (intelligence based), animal handling stead of alchemy, etc. it’s also your responsibility to to remind/request the DM use a different stat for specific rolls.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I would turn it around and ask why should a character who isn't very intelligent know a great deal about any topic?