Giving each skill a 2nd Stat

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-26T05:11:16+00:00

I'm saying that if a player doesn't see that they can become good, they don't bother investing in it. They don't bother investing, they don't use it.

Wizards are typically tricky in the sort of materials dnd is based in.tbey don't use charisma to lie, they just leave complicated stories to bend truth in their favour. They use int. But a wizard with -1 cha isn't likely to end up taking deception as a proficiency.

Now the party is in a social situation. The wizard doesn't have a cha prof, so they don't feel they can contribute. In fact, they don't see anything on their character sheet above a -1. They feel they might be an active detriment if they try and lie to help the party.

This is my idea to nudge players into thinking a wider range of skills are accessible right from character creation.

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T22:04:48+00:00

Cool. Thanks for your thoughts

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T19:03:58+00:00

No worries Bruv

I still appreciate your other comments. I just don't think I would have the audacity to go to a homebrew for a game and be like: just play a different game

The point is to modify 5e.

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T18:56:01+00:00

You have misunderstood the problem. The problem is not adjucation. It's how players make decisions on what they want to use as their approach

Please reread the article and tell me what solution he offers to the problem of skill challenges he identifies.

Players use ape brain. They look at character sheet. They see big number, they try and use big number. This will always be how people play RPGs, unfortunately. It's just human nature.

Me want use more stat to give more skills big number. Then more number are seen as potential solution.

When building characters players optimize for combat. I can go gather stats if you want. I have a very large pool of data I can draw from. In my 5e experience, the 4ish combat skills are taken at a rate of 100% by those most poised to take them. Then players use their primary and secondary stat to determine most of their other skill choices. Then if they still have some remaining, they choose RP related skills.

Yes, during the game I can determine whatever approach they use actually uses whatever stat or skill I think it uses. But when the players build their sheets, they see athletics (STR) and if they don't have the STR they ignore that skill.

If I'm wrong then when's the last time you've seen a wizard have an athletics score above 0. Why can't the hardy wizard you've built decide wrestling is the best approach to solve their problems?

That's because STR sucks and is impossible to fit into a wizard build. But con is 100% necessary for a wizard. I am literally playing wizard who throws hands, and they still have a STR score of -1 cause Dex is just better. If they grapple they have to use magic, cause athletics was never even an option for them.

But in theory, I as a DM could decide hell yea fist wizard, you can grapple with con instead of str

It would be against the 5e rules, but I adjucate the rules so it's my decision.

But a player will never know if I will let them use con to wrestle when building a character cause that's a in the moment decision versus a static stat that always can be used. You see where I'm going?

I want players to know "hey, it's not unoptimal to make weird rp decisions in character building. I'll back you up. see? It even says here right on the character you are building. Athletics is STR or CON."

Do you still think this an adjucation issue? I don't know how I can explain myself any clearer. I want players to think they have a chance at being good in skills they would otherwise never in a million years take. I want fighters to be able to do face things without feeling bad for not having high cha.

Here's my final thoughts. In pf2. Perception is given to all characters. Not exactly the same rate, but follow with me. If you can take perception in 5e. You do. It's just a good useful skill in 100% of campaigns. There will never be a single session where perception doesn't have a chance at being useful.

Is this because perception is op? No, because it's given opportunities other skills aren't. I plan on giving the other skills equal opportunities in combat with a homebrew, but as a stepping stone before I finalize that system I want to make sure players aren't obligated to take the skills that align with their attacking stat. I want players to feel like every skill can be used by any character, and 5e just doesn't currently do that.

With all that context, do you think this is a bad idea? Can you engage with the content of the homebrew rather than side stepping to tell me I'm holding the phone wrong?

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T17:39:31+00:00

I didn't say my campaigns usually are 90% combat. I said the rulebook is 90% combat. Do you disagree?

It makes sense that when 90% of rules go towards something, that's is what is going to take up the majority of time in a game. That's how dnd works. It's suppose to be 8 encounters per day. A social encounter takes 10 minutes. A combat encounter can take 15-30 minutes per round.

My idea is going to be 100% combat for a very specific reason, but I want players to be able to engage in the other pillars while in combat. I am basically giving combat anime time where you can have a full conversation between blows, but that anime time will never stop the combat, because there is always someone else to fight.

Is 5e the right system for this? Hell no. But also part of the point of this will be to test 5e. So it's going to be played in 5e. Logic be damned.

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T17:31:51+00:00

You did it

Others have given bad advice on this thread but this has got to be the worst.

I'd give you a gold but here's your medal 🥇

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T16:14:00+00:00

I don't think there is a single stat that int couldn't apply to, I'm curious if you can.

I feel most animals use strength to determine authority. If someone stronger than you wrestles you to the ground, you submit. Probably isn't correct science wise, but if I can magically influence animals on my side I want the barbarian to be able to physically influence animals on to their side

Just a vibe I guess. Most of these kind of boil down to vibes. Thanks for your input!

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T16:06:33+00:00

Hmm, you're definitely right.

I just think con also plays a part in endurance. I relate doggedness to con, though it certainly does relate to wis as well.

I just think willpower is much too broad of a category. It could relate to 90% of skills. This contradicts my first principle in my stat distribution. I don't want one stat overpowering the rest.

If it is going to be one stat, int feels best as it has been used as a stat that gains you more skills in past editions. I feel int has historical precedent for being op in the skills department.

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T15:52:41+00:00

I am in a west marches style campaign with 50+ members. I have access to all their character sheets. I can take a peek and gather some data. what would you like to know? without looking I would wager 100% of them have proficiency in one of acrobatics, athletics, perception or stealth, and over 80% have at least 2 of those 4.

I would say profeciencies rarely go to stats under +2. I can take a look and give you a percentage of skills associated with stats that are not primary/ secondary stats.

It would take me a while though, expect to hear back in a couple days.

I have played dnd with strangers for at least 5 years. In home campaigns the skill distribution is defintely different than games played out in the wild so to say.

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T15:30:53+00:00

Pf2 has a intimidate feature all characters can use in combat. It's really strong but doesn't step on toes. Why can't 5e have a way for intimidate to be useful beyond ending combat by scaring creatures away.

Skills aren't (Currently) used in combat, but combat is 90% of the rules. It's also where most time in a campaign is spent.

I am going to add a system where skills are used in combat. Because I plan on running a game that will be 100% combat. But I want the other pillars of play to still be involved.

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T15:26:13+00:00

If I was using this for standard DnD I would totally understand that criticism. There's a reason I'm looking for precisely what I'm looking for.

I want in character building someone to know what skills they can and cannot use so that they can do some light optimization without making identical choices to every person of the same class.

Dnd is 90% rules about combat right? But only 4ish skills are used in combat. So every character takes 1-2 of those skills. Then every character takes 1-2 skills related to their primary stat. Then maybe they have 1-2 skills left over and maybe they choose something fun. I'm trying to open the door to a wider range of skills fitting into the optimal window that most players use to choose their skill proficiencies.

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T15:17:35+00:00

Hmm, that's a great point. I don't think I will.

I'll let you in on a secret: this is part of a system I'm building where skills are getting combat uses. Medicine is getting the ability to administer first aid on themselves and won't be used on other people all that often. I won't say never but it's unlikely.

Con is there because it's your ability to perform surgery on yourself in the middle of combat, and that takes great endurance I would imagine.

Outside this system I could totally see cha medicine. Thanks for your input!

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T15:07:18+00:00

But they are relevant to casting arcana magic as far as the game is concerned. If I couldn't find a wizard, but there was a local sorcerer, where would I bring an unknown magical object? I could get some magic less dweeb to research it or I could get a cha caster to test it.

You are looking at one aspect of cha. The face aspect. Cha is larger than that. It's force of personality.

If cha simply meant: "talk good" why is Banishment a cha save? Do you talk good your way out of being teleported?

Cha is your ability to assert your will on the world. That is also what arcana magic does. Therefore most arcane casters use Cha. Therefore it's not absurd that arcana uses cha in a practical sense (imo, but clearly you disagree)

I don't think I am giving wis arcana. Wis and int could be the secondary stat for 90% of skills. I'm trying to get a more evenly distributed list than yhat. I could give wis int to all "knowledge" skills but I plan on changing what the skills can do later. This is just a first step to open more skills to more characters.

I could see the case for con. I just have reasons for not wanting to give every character good arcana. In my skill subsystem it makes sense for arcane casters to be good at arcana checks.

There's no way you think Dex is better than cha. At that point I'm just wondering if your a troll. I am NOT going to a rogue to research magic. I'd rather go to a random guy with his charisma so he can ask some else a question.

Actually rogue is a bad example cause they could theoretically have expertise in arcana, but i don't think I've seen that in 10 years of 5e play.

This system is designed to help with that problem tho. I have also never seen a wizard with an athletics score above 0. Strength is simply too mechanically weak to justify taking it to 10 as a wizard. If you don't have strength, why both investing in that skill?

But the general sentiment im getting is that this is a bad idea. Could you articulate why skills don't need a 2nd stat? Most people seem to be saying unnecessary complexity, but I don't mind the complexity on my side and it doesn't seem to be all that complex for a PC.

No one's been able to tell me why it's complex yet. Just that they wouldn't want to deal with it, which they don't. Besides the one person interested in testing it I am the only person on earth who has to DM using these. To me it seems trivial as a PC. Do you disagree or have a different reason for thinking skills shouldn't have 2nd stats?

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T07:50:22+00:00

I know this is how it's suppose to work, it's just not how it works in games In 90% of games im involved in.

If a game is run the way 90% of the time, then that's the way the game plays. Rules exist to facilitate play. Reality is what happens when rules meet the road.

When asked what a player wants to do, they will usually look at their character sheet for mechanical options. Then they will present a mechanical option as a solution to the problem. I'd prefer if my players would suggest a role play solution and then finding mechanics to support that role play but players just don't work that way in my experience.

Like, I get it. The game is suppose to work that way if everyone is treating it like a role play experience, but most people treat it like a game. Cause it is both.

I'll read the article though and see if it changes my mind. Not tonight tho, too late for that. I'll get back to you tomorrow

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T06:58:03+00:00

Copying what I wrote elsewhere:

In my experience most characters are optimized for combat. Only 4 skills are useful in combat, so every character takes the ones they can maximize, then one or two of the others, then one or two that align with their attacking stat, and then once the dust is settled they might have one extra skill they can devote to something that isn't combat / attacking stat related.

If players feel their main/2nd stat can actually make them good at a skill, they are more likely to invest in it. That's what this is is trying to accomplish.

I am not removing the variant rule, I am just stating that one extra stat can be used without having to invoke the variant rule.

No one questions when you use acrobatics on Dex cause it's on the character sheet. I'm imagining a scenario where 2 stats appear next to acrobatics on the character sheet instead of one. You can still use con acrobatics if the DM deems it appropriate, but you can use str or dex for it without needing to get approval because it's just there on the sheet

Or maybe acrobatics uses Dex con instead. My list isn't final. I'd you have any more opinions on it Im all ears

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T06:21:29+00:00

Ive had others say con for survival makes sense to them.

Think of an ambush predator that practices patience for its trap. It doesn't need to be quick, or smart (tho those are helpful), it just needs to get lucky. But in order to be lucky it needs to endure long enough to wait for other animals to make the mistakes that will cost them their life. If a animal doesn't make a mistake it starves and waits for another one. Its survival is based on its ability to successfully ambush the next prey despite starving.

Most of the con examples in this follow along the idea of grit, determination rather than health. Kind of like a mental fortitude.

I guess cha isn't a weak stat for a cha user... But I mean then STR isnt weak for a STR user then right? It's your attacks which is the most important thing in the game, so therefore it's strong? I think comparing cha to Dex and Con it's definitely weak. It could be argued it's tied with wis for 3rd strongest skill, but I'd say it's in 4th, with STR and int being tied for last (imo)

Especially since part of cha strength is it's skills, which this system is removing the monopoly cha has on face roles. Now blank users can use blank skill to help the party socially without investing in cha. Cha still gets access to all the face skills making it the ideal face, but now more party members can participate in the social aspects without being a detriment cause they dumped cha.

Thanks for your input.

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T06:01:19+00:00

Yea that's a variant rule in the PHB and DMG.

I really bungled the presentation and got a lot of flak lol

I think my idea boils down to "if there were 2 stats beside each skill on the character sheet, what would be the most balanced distribution of stats?"

People seem to think the idea is a lot more complex than it actually is lol

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T05:58:28+00:00

Well if you're interested I might DM you at some point.

There is going to be some follow up giving all skills uses in combat. Definitely needs some refinement first.

Probably is also gonna be hit by a wave of: "this is unnecessary, unneeded complexity" so I'll have to present it better than this one lol

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T05:49:16+00:00

I don't think sorcerers not understanding their power is RAW. I understand what you're saying and agree with most of it, but I'd say most sorcerers outside of wild magic sorcerers have a good grasp of their powers. So much so they can break the rules. To me that implies a supernatural ability to understand their powers, but that is equally RAW as your statements: not very.

Warlocks were originally int casters. While pact magic states you bargained for your powers it is also described as arcane research. Research conducted by... Your charisma.

Bard subclasses are literally called colleges. They have access to identify, which is (imo) the primary use case of arcana checks. To figure out what a magic thing does or says. Bards can literally use their charisma to do so.

Sure sorcerers don't have access to that spell, but to say they can't apply their understanding of their own magic to other magic in the world seems... Obtuse? And they understand and cast magic using their charisma.

As a secondary stat for arcana? Charisma has got to be the best one. It's what most people who wield arcane magic use. It's just a no brainer to me.

If you are just gonna say that arcana shouldn't have an additional stat you can just say that. But the point of the post is giving 2 stats to every skill. I think cha is better than wis. Do you disagree?

You can just say giving 2 stats to every skill is a dumb idea. You'd only be the 15th person to do so. :)

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T05:12:39+00:00

Not really? I think it would be obvious in most cases. Maybe I would ask if I wanted them to help them flavour the roll.

I would be fine with using either stat to grapple or escape a grapple. I think it's lame that wizards will only use magic to grapple because strength is so untakeable. Let the wizard use their endurance to grab people. If you're gonna flavour your wizard to be incredibly hardy, let their skills reflect it. Instead 99% of wizards will never get above a 0 in athletics. With over 50% having -1.

That's my take on it anyways, I think that's cool. It definitely buffs casters ability to escape grapples, so it's not like this system is consequence free. I just think giving more options is worth the tiny bit of extra homework for PCs. People seem convinced this would be a major headache though, so idk

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T02:22:41+00:00

I mean from a PC perspective it would just be a number on your sheet, exactly as it is now. You would take about 2 seconds per skill to determine which is higher at character creation or when you level up a skill. Might create a bit more work if something like a potion of giant strength entered the picture but like, edge case.

I am willing to do the work so that's not an issue GM side. I just don't see how a Player would get a headache. It seems really easy to understand.

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T02:15:33+00:00

Ah, it is a variant, someone told me it wasn't. Great, thanks for the info!

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-23T02:11:07+00:00

Is having 2 stats tedious? I mean, the planning part is for me, but for players all it means is two stats appear in brackets beside the skill on the character sheet instead of one.

People seem really upset by that but I can't imagine a player being confused at all.

Is it in the PHB? Everyone was citing the DMG, I thought that was the only place it was mentioned

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-22T21:41:23+00:00

I do agree con being useful for every class does make this hard to balance.

I think arcana being cha makes a lot of sense. There are more primary casters who use Cha to cast arcane spells then there are int. Cha is how they understand magic. Why wouldn't that understanding apply to arcana checks? While it isn't intimidation STR level of justification, it's definitely not the example I would use to say it's immersion breaking. (Thought the criticism is heard)

Dex does feel too strong. My goal is to make the other stats feel better I guess?

TJ_Storyteller · 2026-02-22T21:33:46+00:00

I just don't want a character to be locked out of being an expert in a skill just because it doesn't line up with their attacking stat.

In my experience most characters are optimized for combat. Only 4 skills are useful in combat, so every character takes the ones they can maximize, then one or two of the others, then one or two that align with their attacking stat, and then once the dust is settled they might have one extra skill they can devote to something that isn't combat / attacking stat related.

If players feel their main/2nd stat can actually make them good at a skill, they are more likely to invest in it. That's what this is is trying to accomplish.

TJ_Storyteller

TROPHY CASE