5th Edition in Practice: What unexpected problems have cropped up?


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Exactly, if you want a character that has a general pool of knowledge, but can't afford to buy points in Arcana, History, Nature and Religion, you can just boost your Intelligence. A character with Intelligence 20 and no proficiency in any of the Knowledge skills is only one point lower on his rolls than a 20th level character with Intelligence 10 and proficiency in all of them.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Kalshane wrote:
Exactly, if you want a character that has a general pool of knowledge, but can't afford to buy points in Arcana, History, Nature and Religion, you can just boost your Intelligence. A character with Intelligence 20 and no proficiency in any of the Knowledge skills is only one point lower on his rolls than a 20th level character with Intelligence 10 and proficiency in all of them.

Really? I can invest my highest array score, my racial +2 bonus, AND two stat increases to be slightly worse at the skills I want than the guy who took all his proficiencies in skills tied to his second worst stat? Hooray! /sarcasm


Just have the skill you feel rounds out your pc. Enjoy

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

I don't really get the "customization" argument. It is a game of make believe, therefore a game that is 100 percent customization (you can make up whatever you and your friends are willing to deal with). It seems that some players are of the kind that must be able to hold up a RULE and say to the DM

"Because I selected X you must let me do Y"

instead of the kind of player who asks the DM

"I will try to do Y, what do I need to roll to succeed?"

Wow, that seems like kind of a "chip-on-shoulder"ish way to interpret discussions of what a system does and doesn't allow/enable. Merely describing the differences between rulesets does not constitute an attitude of coercion against the GM.


But that's just it, isn't it? It always seems to become an adversarial discussion, breaking it down to what the SYSTEM does or does not allow, as if to say, well sorry mister DM/Player (whoever you are trying to argue with) the system doesn't allow that so haha I win and you don't get your way.

You want to be proficient at a combination of skills that the system doesn't specifically say is available

Okay, ask the DM to let you create a skill set that you like, and tell the DM why this will be fun for you


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many DMs will say no to that sort of thing. I'd like more skill points for my Pathfinder sorcerer (and more hit points for that matter), but I'm not going to demand the rules be changed to suit my character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not just a different set of skills, but a larger set of skills - at the expense of something else. The only way I see to do that is to use one of your very rare feats to do so.

Any house rule thoughts on this? I generally like being able to spread my skills around, rather than focus on keeping a few maxed. (Irritates me enough in PF.) I'm naturally a generalist and prefer to be competent at many things rather than excellent at a few - that doesn't seem to be an option with 5E. Other than the "You can roll on anything and proficiency bonus isn't that big", which doesn't really work for me thematically either, since it now implies I'm good at everything.

I was toying with the idea of counting up the actual skill points you get from proficiency in skills and letting you distribute them among more skills if you wanted. More complex of course, but a little more flexible.


RainyDayNinja wrote:
Kalshane wrote:
Exactly, if you want a character that has a general pool of knowledge, but can't afford to buy points in Arcana, History, Nature and Religion, you can just boost your Intelligence. A character with Intelligence 20 and no proficiency in any of the Knowledge skills is only one point lower on his rolls than a 20th level character with Intelligence 10 and proficiency in all of them.
Really? I can invest my highest array score, my racial +2 bonus, AND two stat increases to be slightly worse at the skills I want than the guy who took all his proficiencies in skills tied to his second worst stat? Hooray! /sarcasm

My point was there's not a whole lot of difference between a max-level proficient character and a non-proficient max-statted character. Just having a decent score related to whatever skills you want your character to be good at combined with Bounded Accuracy means your character will be decent at them (though not as good as a dedicated expert.)

Also keep in mind that the 5E skill list is a good deal shorter than Pathfinder's (already truncated from 3.5) skill list. So you don't need as many "skill points" as you had in 3.x/PF.


thejeff wrote:

Not just a different set of skills, but a larger set of skills - at the expense of something else. The only way I see to do that is to use one of your very rare feats to do so.

Any house rule thoughts on this? I generally like being able to spread my skills around, rather than focus on keeping a few maxed. (Irritates me enough in PF.) I'm naturally a generalist and prefer to be competent at many things rather than excellent at a few - that doesn't seem to be an option with 5E. Other than the "You can roll on anything and proficiency bonus isn't that big", which doesn't really work for me thematically either, since it now implies I'm good at everything.

I was toying with the idea of counting up the actual skill points you get from proficiency in skills and letting you distribute them among more skills if you wanted. More complex of course, but a little more flexible.

Think about it this way: +2 to a stat is considered the equivalent to a feat in 5E. In 3.x/PF, you could raise your Intelligence score by 2 points to gain access to 1 more maxed out Skill (at the expense of +2 to another stat.) In 5E, you can forgo +2 to a stat to gain access to 3 maxed out skills. So you actually get more bang for your buck in 5E. :P

(And yes, I realize with point buy raising your Intelligence 2 points might actually be cheaper than raising another stat by 2 points, but either way, spending a feat for 3 skills isn't unreasonable in comparison.)

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Not just a different set of skills, but a larger set of skills - at the expense of something else. The only way I see to do that is to use one of your very rare feats to do so.

Any house rule thoughts on this?

Here's the house rule I suggested for Jiggy's game that I play in (which he mercilessly shot down!):

I wrote:

Every level, you get 2+Int mod "learning points" to apply toward gaining proficiency in a skill or tool. Tools and class skills take 10 points to earn proficiency, while cross-class skills take 15. Each subsequent proficiency costs 2 more.

So a 8-Int character can still gain one proficiency eventually. A 10 Int character could gain a couple at 6 and 12. My 12-Int ranger could pick up the rest of his class skills at 5, 9, and 13, plus a cross-class skill at 20. And so on.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are training rules. 250 days of training at 1 gp a day to learn a tool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SmiloDan wrote:
There are training rules. 250 days of training at 1 gp a day to learn a tool.

But only tools. Which is a weird distortion. Especially since a couple of tools are adventuring skills, IIRC, but most such skills aren't learnable.

More so though, I dislike balance by downtime. It's either completely trivial in some games or impossible in others.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
But that's just it, isn't it? It always seems to become an adversarial discussion, breaking it down to what the SYSTEM does or does not allow, as if to say, well sorry mister DM/Player (whoever you are trying to argue with) the system doesn't allow that so haha I win and you don't get your way.

It perplexes me that you would say that, given your own denial of houserules in your Castle Caldwell game. What you're saying now would seem to suggest that your own post where you veto'd a houserule I suggested should have been interpreted as "the system doesn't allow that so haha I win and you don't get your way". I know I certainly did NOT interpret that veto in such a negative way, and I'd wager a guess nobody else did either. You just had a preference to run things "by the book", and that was that. No biggie.

So why not assume the best of those discussing differences of rulesets, just as I assumed the best of my DM shooting down a request? Doesn't have to "become an adversarial discussion," as you put it. Folks can just talk. :)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Yeah, those rules are kind of sucky. I wish there was a way to make small, customizable improvements to your character, but I think the 5th Edition is too modular for that. It relies too much on Proficiency bonus to give out smaller incremental bonuses.


Jiggy wrote:
Terquem wrote:
But that's just it, isn't it? It always seems to become an adversarial discussion, breaking it down to what the SYSTEM does or does not allow, as if to say, well sorry mister DM/Player (whoever you are trying to argue with) the system doesn't allow that so haha I win and you don't get your way.

It perplexes me that you would say that, given your own denial of houserules in your Castle Caldwell game. What you're saying now would seem to suggest that your own post where you veto'd a houserule I suggested should have been interpreted as "the system doesn't allow that so haha I win and you don't get your way". I know I certainly did NOT interpret that veto in such a negative way, and I'd wager a guess nobody else did either. You just had a preference to run things "by the book", and that was that. No biggie.

So why not assume the best of those discussing differences of rulesets, just as I assumed the best of my DM shooting down a request? Doesn't have to "become an adversarial discussion," as you put it. Folks can just talk. :)

Since I almost signed up for that game, his "no houserules" stance there was specifically to see if that's what was wanted
Terquem wrote:

I’ve seen a couple of 5e recruitment threads go belly up here (one of them was almost one of my games, whew) because of the tendency of Older DMs (like me) wanting to throw a lot of House Rules at players interested in trying 5e right from the get go

So I thought I’d try to convert Castle Caldwel and Beyond to 5e and run it with no house rules at all, just straight out of the core 5e books


thejeff wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:
There are training rules. 250 days of training at 1 gp a day to learn a tool.

But only tools. Which is a weird distortion. Especially since a couple of tools are adventuring skills, IIRC, but most such skills aren't learnable.

More so though, I dislike balance by downtime. It's either completely trivial in some games or impossible in others.

It wouldn't be too far fetch to ask your DM for an houserule that would allow skills training.


Yes, Jeff has the gist of it. I am a HUGE fan of house rules and changes made by the group to make the game exactly what your group wants it to be. I am normally very flexible when it comes to character creation. Though I do not like the request of a player to "have it all" and take no short comings in some areas, but I am usually willing to work out something we can both agree will work

Castle Caldwell was started specifically to see if a straight no house rule game would generate enough interest (and admittedly to help me take the time to learn the rules before I go thinking that just because I've been playing for 38 years doesn't mean I should automatically house rule a system I am not familiar with and throw the baby out with the bath water, so they say).

My Palace of the Vampire Queen 5e game is heavily house ruled, and I have lost players because of it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cyrad wrote:


For those who had the pleasure of playing a 5th Edition game, are my concerns actually present in the game? Having a character adapt in response to their adventure experiences has massive appeal to me. A character that follows a set path and doesn't change with respect to their experiences strikes me as really boring.

I played it a bit and stopped for EXACTLY the reason that you describe. Like you, I also like to let my characters develop through play. 5e puts you on a certain course with your character and while there are a few designated forks in the road you are basically still on a path. It didn't work for my play style.

For whats its worth some of my friends seem to like it pretty well and have stuck with it longer than I did.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
Castle Caldwell was started specifically to see if a straight no house rule game would generate enough interest

That's a very valid reason to not have any houserules. :)

So, doesn't that just go to show that someone talking like there aren't any houserules might very well have a valid reason to do so, just like you do? Doesn't your own example prove that people talking about what the system allows are not necessarily speaking out of an adversarial mindset, and in fact might have very good reasons for their comments/decisions?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
My Palace of the Vampire Queen 5e game is heavily house ruled

Sounds like you might have a lot to talk about in this thread. I'm interested in what you've house ruled and why you felt the core rule was problematic. Personally, my house rules have grown fewer over time.

Perhaps a 5e house rule thread is called for?

RainyDayNinja wrote:

Of course I can use Stealth, even though I don't have it as one of my proficiencies. It was next in line for the skills I wanted, but I only got to pick three. So I'm only OK at it; for my character concept, I'd like to be actually good at it.

In PF, I could say "Oh, I don't have quite enough skill points to keep everything I want maxed. I'll have to give up some of my Con to get more Int so I can get another."

In 5e, I'm left saying "Oh, I don't get enough skill proficiencies to be good at all the things I want... Darn."

You can customize a background if you want a specific skillset, but to get more, you'd need a feat.

It is a weakness of 5e that there is nothing to trade in for skills/tools at character creation. But INT should not be the thing to do it. INT to skills means casters, who already have a spell for every occasion, also would have more skills than a 5e rogue and nearly as many as a 3e rogue. This is actually a weakness of 3e. Even though it works out great for non-INT casters who want extra skills, it's broken for INT casters, which means it's a broken rule. So 5e did right in taking skills away from INT, but there should be another way to make such trades.

Seems like there was a thread a while back about an equitable tradeoff between various proficiencies. Like, could you drop shield proficiency to gain a skill? I forget the outcome of that discussion. If I were to house rule something, it would be along those lines.

Liberty's Edge

RainyDayNinja wrote:


In 5e, I'm left saying "Oh, I don't get enough skill proficiencies to be good at all the things I want... Darn."

Do you mean when you first make the character or even once you hit the lofty heights of level 20?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thejeff wrote:

Not just a different set of skills, but a larger set of skills - at the expense of something else. The only way I see to do that is to use one of your very rare feats to do so.

Any house rule thoughts on this?

Personally, I like the limited mechanical customisation of a 5E PC - it's one of the elements of 5E that takes me back to 'how things were in my day' where characters are very similar mechanically and the differentiation is all in the personality. In fact, my criticism of 5E is that there's too much customisation - so far it's proving a good halfway point between what I like and what the rest of my group likes though.

One issue you mention that also came up for us was the all-or-nothingness of the skilled feat. You can't trade something away for just one skill, but rather have to be much more broadly skilled than anyone else by picking up three skills/tools.

A houserule I offered to my players (though they ended up not taking it up) was to invent a new incarnation of one of 5E's 'semi-stat' feats. Namely, a feat that granted proficiency in a skill and +1 to the associated stat. I find it interesting you regard feats as very rare - in my mind they're reasonably plentiful over a character's life (since the stat gain alternative isnt that powerful). Granted, my characters have nearly all been variant human fighters - so I'm getting more than most...

Another thing I'm using in a two PC game is to just give both PCs the skilled feat for free (though that's more about covering all the bases, rather than to help them customise their characters)

I wouldnt recommend 5E to someone who enjoys the tinkering with different character options so exemplified by PF. If someone like that was in my 5E game, I'd definitely use the feats subsystem and probably also grant three or four additional skill/tool proficiencies over a character's development - perhaps one new proficiency each time your proficiency bonus goes up, as that's easy to remember.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of gaining a new skill/tool/language proficiency each time your Proficiency Bonus increases.

I don't think tying skills to Int is a bad thing. Only wizards, eldritch knights, and arcane tricksters use Int for spells. Maybe give rogues 6 skills and bards & rangers 4.

Actually, one of the things I don't like about 5th Edition is how the mental stats are only good for spell stuff and some skills, but don't have any other mechanical or combat use. Wisdom saves are good to have, but Intelligence and Charisma saves rarely come up.

I understand they wanted to limit the number of skills there are in the game, but a couple Strength skills and even some Constitution skills (Concentration, Endurance, and Labor?) would be nice.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SmiloDan wrote:

I like the idea of gaining a new skill/tool/language proficiency each time your Proficiency Bonus increases.

I don't think tying skills to Int is a bad thing. Only wizards, eldritch knights, and arcane tricksters use Int for spells. Maybe give rogues 6 skills and bards & rangers 4.

Actually, one of the things I don't like about 5th Edition is how the mental stats are only good for spell stuff and some skills, but don't have any other mechanical or combat use. Wisdom saves are good to have, but Intelligence and Charisma saves rarely come up.

I understand they wanted to limit the number of skills there are in the game, but a couple Strength skills and even some Constitution skills (Concentration, Endurance, and Labor?) would be nice.

New proficiencies when your bonus goes up is a cool idea. But I'd probably say you only get half proficiency with skills (and you can pick it again to get full proficiency), since they're going to be more valued than tools or languages.

I kind of like the idea of using Charisma as a measure of luck. Not sure which PC should get hit by lightning in the storm? Have them make opposed luck checks.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
perhaps one new proficiency each time your proficiency bonus goes up, as that's easy to remember.

Mind = blown.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Terquem wrote:
Castle Caldwell was started specifically to see if a straight no house rule game would generate enough interest

That's a very valid reason to not have any houserules. :)

So, doesn't that just go to show that someone talking like there aren't any houserules might very well have a valid reason to do so, just like you do? Doesn't your own example prove that people talking about what the system allows are not necessarily speaking out of an adversarial mindset, and in fact might have very good reasons for their comments/decisions?

yes, yes it does.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

That's all I was getting at. :)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

RainyDayNinja wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:

I like the idea of gaining a new skill/tool/language proficiency each time your Proficiency Bonus increases.

I don't think tying skills to Int is a bad thing. Only wizards, eldritch knights, and arcane tricksters use Int for spells. Maybe give rogues 6 skills and bards & rangers 4.

Actually, one of the things I don't like about 5th Edition is how the mental stats are only good for spell stuff and some skills, but don't have any other mechanical or combat use. Wisdom saves are good to have, but Intelligence and Charisma saves rarely come up.

I understand they wanted to limit the number of skills there are in the game, but a couple Strength skills and even some Constitution skills (Concentration, Endurance, and Labor?) would be nice.

New proficiencies when your bonus goes up is a cool idea. But I'd probably say you only get half proficiency with skills (and you can pick it again to get full proficiency), since they're going to be more valued than tools or languages.

I kind of like the idea of using Charisma as a measure of luck. Not sure which PC should get hit by lightning in the storm? Have them make opposed luck checks.

From a balance issue, I can see giving out 1/2 a proficiency bonus to skills, but from an ease of bookkeeping issue, I can see just giving out full proficiency to the skill....


As a DM, I prefer letting players make a broader use of their skills than letting them have more skill proficiencies. I'm a big fan of detaching the skill from the key ability (like the example of Constitution - Athletics)

Wisdom check to sense the motives of the captain of the guards? Insight is a natural, but I could accept a player using investigation when observation time is allowed. Strength - Acrobatics to jump over the fence? why not. Performance can sometimes fill-in for deception, etc


On the balance issue, I could get behind either a new tool proficiency at full proficiency bonus or a new skill proficiency at 2/3 bonus (round down; ranges from 2-4) at each proficiency increase.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2/3 can lead to super awkward math. I think one of the best parts of 5th Edition is the easy math. You either have Proficiency or you don't, except for a very few side cases, like Expertise or Remarkable Athlete.


If you say so, but given the entire conceit of bounded accuracy, unless you have a +5 bonus (reduced: +3) or a +6 bonus (reduced: +4), your bonus is only ever +2. The only way it could be any simpler is by saying that your additional skills have the same bonus as your starting selection, which could be unbalancing (as noted earlier).

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure giving out everyone 4 extra skills over 17 levels would be unbalancing. I'm sure a lot would take Perception, of course, but that's not horrible.

But I'm kind of a skill junky. I like skills, and I like using them and when I DM, I like it when the PCs use them.

Especially since you can't dabble in skills using skill points like 3.5/PF, it might be a fun addition to the game. I don't think many players are going to argue that they have too many skills, and some might like the opportunity to learn other things besides skills, such as additional languages or toolkits. Maybe even a new trinket! Or maybe a new weapon proficiency? Kind of how some of the PF favored class bonuses reduce a penalty by -1 every level for 4 levels, and then you gain proficiency in a single weapon.

I just like the idea of a PC having the opportunity to learn new stuff as they advance in levels, and not just getting better at the stuff they knew at 1st level.

Maybe if a new skill is considered too powerful, it could be "balanced" by having a new flaw, or even bond? It would increase some roleplaying aspects to the game, too. This might increase the amount of Inspiration the PCs get back, but I already houserule you get a number of Inspiration points equal to your Proficiency bonus. That way, it isn't hoarded for emergencies and can be used for a little fun too.


I pretty much agree with everything you said in your post, don't get me wrong. I'm also a skills junky, which is one of the several reasons I disliked Star Wars Saga Edition so much.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, this thread basically, from what I can tell, considers the fact this isn't a skills based game, like, say, Pathfinder, a problem. That, by making a game that isn't some build-a-thon, 5e is "problematic". Play 3x. Problem solved.


houstonderek wrote:
So, this thread basically, from what I can tell, considers the fact this isn't a skills based game, like, say, Pathfinder, a problem. That, by making a game that isn't some build-a-thon, 5e is "problematic". Play 3x. Problem solved.

PF is already too focused in skills for me.

Besides, I like a lot of other things about 5E. I just have never liked the "You have only a few skills, but you're really good at them approach." I prefer generalists. Which works well in some games, but fails in PF and can't really be done in 5E.


thejeff wrote:
Besides, I like a lot of other things about 5E. I just have never liked the "You have only a few skills, but you're really good at them approach." I prefer generalists. Which works well in some games, but fails in PF and can't really be done in 5E.

My thoughts exactly.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
houstonderek wrote:
So, this thread basically, from what I can tell, considers the fact this isn't a skills based game, like, say, Pathfinder, a problem. That, by making a game that isn't some build-a-thon, 5e is "problematic". Play 3x. Problem solved.

For our group the 'problem' isn't really with the game it's more about different tastes within the group and how we utilise the game to meet those different desires:

I like super-simple, roll your stats, choose a race/class and you're done kind of systems. Others in my group like much more build-focussed games where you can customise your character in all kinds of different directions. We've settled on 5E as a good compromise - too complicated for me and too simple for them but acceptable to all of us. It's working fine, but we have noticed the lack of skills development to be a stumbling block for the 'builders' who have an implicit expectation of developing their character as it advances in levels.

Working through that and looking for houserules to improve the experience for them is far, far superior (in my eyes) than playing 3.x. I really struggle to care enough about PC optimisation and in Pathfinder you really get punished for taking that approach.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Pathfinder really rewards rule mastery, and 5th Edition is much more forgiving.

But it's weird that you can pick and choose different spells with ease as you level up, but not mundane skills.


Arakhor wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Besides, I like a lot of other things about 5E. I just have never liked the "You have only a few skills, but you're really good at them approach." I prefer generalists. Which works well in some games, but fails in PF and can't really be done in 5E.
My thoughts exactly.

My primary suggestion would be to Play a bard, especially a knowledge bard Or maybe a rogue, a knowledge cleric or a champion fighter. They all get a bit of skill boost along the way. Multiclass into rogue, ranger or bard if you want to skill up later on.

IMO If you want to play a skills generalist, they exist. You just can't be a skills generalist and a class that doesn't focus on skills. This is a feature of the game, not a bug. Skill granularity leads more toward skill min maxing (ie focussing on the more commonly used and in game valuable skills than the more esoteric skills) than generalisation.

The house rule I would offer as GM would be to let you freeze a proficiency at 5th and add the bonuses to another skill if that's what you wanted (I.e. when you go up to 5th you don't go up in it but you can add it to something else).

One way of looking at the system in a 3e way is that say you get 5 skills at +2 at first level, they go up to +3 at 5th so that means you get 10 points to distribute at 1st level (maximum bonus +2) and another 5 skill points to distribute at 5th, 9th, 13th and 17th. If your class picks up an extra proficiency you get extra points. You may need to come up with some sort of class skill mechanism ( like a lower max for non class skills etc). My view is this would likely lead to the 3e min,max on skills - with perception athletics and acrobatics being maxed for the wizard.


SmiloDan wrote:

Pathfinder really rewards rule mastery, and 5th Edition is much more forgiving.

But it's weird that you can pick and choose different spells with ease as you level up, but not mundane skills.

Meh pick and choose different recipes but can't as easily learn about history or how to animal handle.

The Exchange

5th ed spells are not the problem fixers that pathfinders are. You need skills for those situations where pathfinder used to just let a spell solve it. This means skills are more powerful.

Note also skills in fifth can be used by anyone, trained or not. The dc's are also mostly within the range of a d20 roll. There are no more ridiculous dc's that require mastery to reach.

The skill system is not the issue it is in pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

thejeff wrote:
I'm naturally a generalist and prefer to be competent at many things rather than excellent at a few - that doesn't seem to be an option with 5E. Other than the "You can roll on anything and proficiency bonus isn't that big", which doesn't really work for me thematically either, since it now implies I'm good at everything.

This is where my GM fiat has probably come most into play in 5E. Since you can technically attempt any check in 5E, proficient or not, I will only let players make it if it fits their character. Granted, this mostly comes up with Knowledge checks.

So a simple check like, say, the ingredients in a healing potion is a general enough knowledge that I'll let anyone make it. Spellcasters or characters proficient with an herbalism kit will probably succeed automatically.

But an Arcana check to identify rune markings indicating a high level spell will be off-limits to your Fighter (unless they're an Eldritch Knight, and the check will still be higher for you than a Universalist wizard if it's not in the Abjuration or Evocation school)

It's come up in a few other instances - using Thieves' Tools and Performance (I think it was juggling?) spring immediately to mind. You can always take the Skilled feat or training to be able to MAKE the check, but I'm going to up the DCs for characters who just started studying it during the adventure or slightly before versus the ones who have, theoretically, been at it for years.


RainyDayNinja wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

I think I finally came up with something I don't like in 5E: your skill selections are basically set in stone at 1st level. Outside of some very specific class features (like becoming a Lore bard), you're going to hit 20th level and be proficient in exactly the same set of skills you were proficient in at 1st level.

If your game uses feats, then you can exchange one of your stat boosts for a handful of proficiencies, but then it has to be a whole batch of skills that you suddenly learn. What if you've been adventuring for five levels and you feel like it would make sense for your character to pick up such-and-such a skill? The system doesn't support it; you would need to ask the GM for a houserule in order to learn something new.

I'm going to offer my PbP campaign a new houserule whereby each time you level up you can make effort toward eventually learning a new skill (or tool) proficiency.

I had a similar issue, but I'm more concerned with the fact that I can't make any sacrifices at character creation to get more skill proficiencies. I'm used to Pathfinder, where I can put a 12 in Int to get an extra skill/level, and did the same thing out of habit on my 5e Ranger.

This issue is really not as big a deal as you might think. 5E DCs are fixed, rather than increasing over time as in PF. So a hard lock with a DC15 to pick is going to be DC15 whether your character is 1st level or 10th. What this means is you don't really need skill points if you want to get better at picking locks, just add 2 to your Dex next time around.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Or multiclass into a class that has Expertise. A multi-class bard/rogue can get double their Proficiency bonus in 8 skills!

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Knowledge Domain Cleric is also potent as a dip, but more limited in what you can get expertise to.


TheRavyn wrote:
5E DCs are fixed, rather than increasing over time as in PF. So a hard lock with a DC15 to pick is going to be DC15 whether your character is 1st level or 10th. What this means is you don't really need skill points if you want to get better at picking locks, just add 2 to your Dex next time around.

Picking locks isn't supposed to get harder in Pathfinder either. An 'average' lock is always DC 25. Though it's up to the GM whether you find harder locks at higher levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
TheRavyn wrote:
5E DCs are fixed, rather than increasing over time as in PF. So a hard lock with a DC15 to pick is going to be DC15 whether your character is 1st level or 10th. What this means is you don't really need skill points if you want to get better at picking locks, just add 2 to your Dex next time around.
Picking locks isn't supposed to get harder in Pathfinder either. An 'average' lock is always DC 25. Though it's up to the GM whether you find harder locks at higher levels.

I run a PF adventure path in 5e and during conversion I'm routinely kicking back skill DCs from obscene numbers like 30 and 40. These often become 12s and 15s, and only very rarely 20+. A 5e character really just doesn't need all this skill points like a PF character does. My players are about to enter the Runeforge, and right off the bat, I've got to convert several DC 40-50 (yeah 50!) knowledge checks, a DC 40 disable device check, and a DC 45 climb check. What the hell is a DC 50 knowledge check supposed to simulate anyway lol? It brings the end of Highlander to mind.


I know something I wont tell

Uh:
Indian Joe is ticklish

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

In 3.5/PF, I just explain ridiculous levels of competence at high levels, not have super slippery walls with nanotechnological oil that actively pushes climbers down and off.

I figure you have +25 Perception, you can see the buttons on the ninja hiding behind the wall. ;-)

51 to 100 of 125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 5th Edition in Practice: What unexpected problems have cropped up? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.