D&D 5E What should the skill list look like?

Sadrik · Sep 30, 2012

I would like to see a freeform system based on your background. I would also like to see the skill system placed under ability scores in that section of the book. So Under Strength you would see how to climb And swim etc. Basically common knowledge common physical traits common things that you do that do not require extensive training should be handled purely under an ability check. Why complicate it more than just that. These are already what your stats represent.

The only thing that I think could be made into a separate system is the concept of trained only skills. Some things you should only be able to do if you're trained in them. For instance a surgeon, or any other highly skilled profession. No one should be able to make a roll or or it should be really difficult And with the skill it would become easier.

So common everyday things like running climbing jumping swimming spotting researching in a library things like that should all be based on just a plain old ability check. These could all be written into functions of the ability score in that section of the book. A background that applies to any one of these might get a bonus. Skills that are trained only would be in a separate section of the book and would also be applicable to background bonuses And perhaps even require them.

Greg K · Sep 30, 2012

Sadrik said:
I would like to see a freeform system based on your background. I would also like to see the skill system placed under ability scores in that section of the book. So Under Strength you would see how to climb And swim etc. Basically common knowledge common physical traits common things that you do that do not require extensive training should be handled purely under an ability check.

As with a few broad skills, I would only accept this as a module. I want nothing to do with a table using it.

Minigiant · Oct 1, 2012

JamesonCourage said:
I'll leave it for other people to judge. Basically, if you end up with a skill list that is 8-12 skills long, I'll end up very disappointed with it. Being able to specialize is nice, since it's more nuanced, I'll give it that. But I'm not looking for that level of broad skills.

However, a ton of people want a small skill list. So, on that note, I'll step out and let them judge your stuff for now. Who knows, maybe it'll be a huge hit. As always, play what you like

The point of the branching skill system is that you can use the root skills, the branch skills, or both.

I prefer only a few skills. I'd only use the root skills of Athletics, Acrobatics, Deception, Diplomacy, Endurance, Lore, Perception, Stealth, and Underworld.

Other people could use all the branch skills from Appraise to Use magic device.

And even others could use both with branch skills having a larger bonus.

Jeff Carlsen · Oct 1, 2012

Minigiant said:
The point of the branching skill system is that you can use the root skills, the branch skills, or both.

I prefer only a few skills. I'd only use the root skills of Athletics, Acrobatics, Deception, Diplomacy, Endurance, Lore, Perception, Stealth, and Underworld.

Other people could use all the branch skills from Appraise to Use magic device.

And even others could use both with branch skills having a larger bonus.

This is my thought as well. Using a branching system, it's easy to create simpler modules. For some groups, all you have are the broad skills, and they increase slowly. Other groups might have broad skills, with the subskills being used for specializations. Other groups might only use the subskills and give out more points. All three setups utilize the same core structure.

JasonZZ · Oct 1, 2012

KaiiLurker said:
Well, they'd rather reitnroudce all of the fun skills they left out on 4e. Perform, sing, disguise, forgery, etc.

No on most of those. I shouldn't have to give up competence to sing well.

Perhaps disguise should be an aspect of bluff or deception (or whatever they end up calling it), and forgery should be another use of sleight of hand.

Quickleaf · Oct 1, 2012

It's interesting, the idea of "siloing" skills has come up several times in this and other threads about 5e skills. I wonder if a combination of background and trained only skills could work for most of us?

As in, let's say you play a rogue and get the bonus "Thief" background in addition to your "Commoner" background. But your backstories has your character recruited as a sort of medieval detective, so you want to be able to perform forensic medical exams. There might be a feat/skill which gives you Treat Injury training (or perhaps you could take the Jack-of-All-Trades specialty and use it to get training. Just spit balling.

MoonSong · Oct 1, 2012

JasonZZ said:
No on most of those. I shouldn't have to give up competence to sing well.

Perhaps disguise should be an aspect of bluff or deception (or whatever they end up calling it), and forgery should be another use of sleight of hand.

The point is, on my eyes picking to be an awesome singer doesn't equates to giving up competency. Being a very good singer is itself a competency!. To me every skill and ability on the game is only as meaningful as you can invest resources on it, if you can't assign meaningful resources into a skill, then that skill isn't considered meaningful enough by the system.

DEFCON 1 · Oct 1, 2012

KaiiLurker said:
To me every skill and ability on the game is only as meaningful as you can invest resources on it, if you can't assign meaningful resources into a skill, then that skill isn't considered meaningful enough by the system.

Whereas the opposite way to look at it is also true:

"Every skill and ability in the game is only as meaningful as the number of times you'll be asked to call upon it."

If you've put resources into a skill that only gets used once every eight to ten sessions instead of one that is called upon several times in a single session, then that skill isn't considered meaningful enough by the system.

If the system never asks you to justify your competence with a die roll... then spending resources to raise it is a waste. Which is why 4E eliminated (or merged) those skills from the game.

MoonSong · Oct 1, 2012

DEFCON 1 said:
Whereas the opposite way to look at it is also true:

"Every skill and ability in the game is only as meaningful as the number of times you'll be asked to call upon it."

If you've put resources into a skill that only gets used once every eight to ten sessions instead of one that is called upon several times in a single session, then that skill isn't considered meaningful enough by the system.

If the system never asks you to justify your competence with a die roll... then spending resources to raise it is a waste. Which is why 4E eliminated (or merged) those skills from the game.

Well, there's still the fact that what skills are good and what are subapar is entirely campaign related, negating the option to invest resources on certain skills completely destroys the chance of them being meaningful, even on the right campaign, which also restricts what kind of campaings can be run.

DEFCON 1 · Oct 1, 2012

KaiiLurker said:
Well, there's still the fact that what skills are good and what are subapar is entirely campaign related, negating the option to invest resources on certain skills completely destroys the chance of them being meaningful, even on the right campaign, which also restricts what kind of campaings can be run.

True enough. But at some point a line does have to be drawn. Just because some player's campaign might involve milking cows doesn't mean therefore that Cowmilking should be a skill in the default system, since a large percentage of the gaming populace will not use it. At some point, it is up to an individual DM to decide for himself to ADD additional skills to the game for his campaign where they will be of use, not expect the game to have all those options there for him.

Decipher Script and Sleight of Hand might never get used in 99% of all games. So having them in the default list is a waste of linespace. But a DM who is running a rogue-centric game might find splitting Thievery out back into its component parts of Open Locks, Disarm Traps, Pickpocketing etc. worthwhile. He should do so, but not expect the game should default that way.