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

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
I don't think we need to have players advancing skills, all it does is make me have to increase the DC of things just to keep them interesting for the guy who trained in the skill. This is a real problem for the player who didn't happen to have trained in that skill.

This is the essence of the problem with 3e skills progression (and advancement in general as I see it).

I don't raise DCs just to make things interesting. My response is more to tell the player that his PC doesn't have to roll the easy checks and get on with the action at hand rather than waste time on the now-unnecessary roll. So I don't consider it a problem.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jeff Carlsen

Adventurer
There is no consensus because there are at least two mindsets about skills.

One mindset wants to express their character through the skill system in a nuanced manner.

The other wishes skills and backgrounds to be a lightweight enhancement to the ability score focused core of the game.

Personally, I'm in the latter camp. D&D is a class based system. Skills add a little extra but are not the primary form of character expression. That would be your race, class, and now background.

When I want a skill based system (and I usually do), I want a fully skill based system.

Regardless, I think the developers should consider an advanced skills module. There seems to be demand for it.
 
Last edited:

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I think the issue is solved if you focus on the DCs.

Instead of focusing on the Professional Lore skill or the Artisan skill or the Jewel Craft skill, focus on the Crafting DC for making a pretty ring.

When you discover the target, then you and your group can determine how the skill list looks to beat that target.

If you know a jump of 15ft is DC 15, then it doesn't matter whether you use you use Strength mod, Jump skill, or Athletics skill.


Personally I thing there should be 2 skill tiers.

1 list with broadly applicable skill the looks like the 4elist.
and
1 list with narrow bonuses that grant stronger bonuses.


Groups can use the broad skills, the narrow skills, both, or neither.
 

GameDoc

Explorer
The consensus is that there is no consensus.

I was thinking about this discussion quite a bit last night and it occurred to me one of the cool things emerging with the modular design of Next is that any of us could decide to use the ideas we've presented here in our games and it won't break the other components (spells, combat, racial features, feats/specialties) and vice versa.

Contrast to 4e where ritual magic and later a good deal of powers were bound to skills. Or both 3e and 4e where many feats worked by granting skill training or bonuses.

Just thought I'd point that out. As much as I still think WotC needs to present a well-designed skill system for the final product, it's nice to think we can all tinker and modify as we want without having to reinvent the whole game.

All that to say, consensus is nice, but a lack of it may not be as big a problem as it once was.
 
Last edited:


ZombieRoboNinja

First Post
I was thinking about this discussion quite a bit last night and it occurred to me one of the cool things emerging with the modular design of Next is that any of us could decide to use the ideas we've presented here in our games and it won't break the other components (spells, combat, racial features, feats/specialties) and vice versa.

Contrast to 4e where ritual magic and later a good deal of powers were bound to skills. Or both 3e and 4e where many feats worked by granting skill training or bonuses.

This is a good point, and I guess something to keep in mind in a bunch of different areas.

For example, 5e combat casting is a straight Con check (instead of having a "Concentration" skill tax for casters). In fact, I'd bet that no class except Rogue mentions a specific skill check or bonus, except for the free lore skills. So it's very easy to cut out or overhaul the skill system without screwing everything else up.
 

Kannik

Hero
Thanks all for the discussion in the thread -- it has had me check my own assumptions about how skills ought to work and led me to explore down a few paths of different ways it could be done and that has been great fun!

One way I could see this working for D&DN, written totally off the cuff stream of conciousness:

Explicitly make it such that your attributes is not necessarily ONLY your born-with physical traits, but also represents skill and development. To an extent this is already in the game -- not every 18 STR character looks like Conan -- but if most "skill" checks are supposed to be attribute checks, then let's go ahead and say "STR represents your character's ability to use their body for athletic reasons" (or something similar). So a monk who's studied how to most effectively use their body structure and mechanics could be as, or more, effective than the uber-muscular neophyte.

There is an issue with this, of course, where suddenly every archer is a world class gymnast as well, but again this already exists in the game to an extent.

With this, then many skills, such as Athletics, needn't be in the game, as your STR score is effectively that. Diplomacy could go away, as straight up CHA. And so forth.

Classes could give, rather than certain skills, a straight up bonus to a certain stat. A fighter would have a +1 to STR, making them immediately effective in striking things (balanced with whatever to hit bonus is right for a character) but also in the usual bevy of physical things we might expect, w/o being limited by low skill points or similar.

Certain Skills, or class abilities, would give straight up abilities that could work like skills. For example, being an Acrobat Rogue would give that characer the ability to make a DEX check to avoid drawing an attack as they move through the battlefield. Or being a Wizard would let you make INT checks to do what normally would fall under the Arcana skill. No bonus needed nor anything else to keep track of -- you have that ability to use an attribute roll for that purpose, or you dont. (there would be some way for non-members of that class to get that ability too)

Skills that are left could be divided up into, let's say, Adventuring Skills and Background Skills.

Adventuring skills would be specific and narrow. Climb, Thievery, Stealth would be examples -- they give bonuses or extra ability in a small range of actions.

Background Skills would be loose and broad. Merchant, Sailor, Wilderness Dweller, Performer, Clergy all would be examples. They give a small bonus to attribute rolls whenever the DM/Players agree it applies.

In all those cases (class features, adventuring or background skills) there are no specific attributes linked to it. Wherever it applies it applies. So, a fighter making a diplomatic attempt (CHA check) with a general could use his Soldier background skill to aid her as she knows how to talk within the rank, use military stories, and etc. And, when she makes an INT check to figure out how to operate a foreign seige engine, she can apply her Soldier bonus from her familiarity with siege engines in general.

So, we could have that your class gives you an attribute bonus and certain features, the theme could give you Adventuring Skills, and the Background would give you, well, Background skill(s). Or, more flexibly, backgrounds give you both a background skill and a choice off of a list of adventuring skills. Classes would likely have choices of different features, and maybe an adventuring skill or two.

I'll going to let this percolate for a bit... ;)

peace,

Kannik
 



steenan

Adventurer
What I want from a skill system?

- It should be reasonably complete. If something is obviously more a result of specialized training than of general ability, there should be a skill that handles this. Things that are obviously advantages (and that should be treated this way in game, instead of ignored) should not be left as pure description.

- It should be reasonably simple. Definitely no more than 20 skills, and optimally around 12. Also, a system with a few ranks is better than one with many, because it's easier to understand what the values mean in fiction.

- It should be balanced. No matter what skills you spend your resources on, they are equally useful - but, of course, they are useful in different situations. If something is used all the time (eg. noticing things or casting when distracted), it shouldn't be a skill, but an ability check. If something is used rarely, it should be a part of a bigger skill, not a separate skill by itself.


I'm not interested in a system that either discards background skills entirely or makes me waste points if I want to represent my background mechanically. In other words, I want the system to make background skills really useful in game.


One of the ways to do it is making the skills more about a type of person and role than about a type of activity. It goes well with flexible attribute-skill pairing.

If I'm a blacksmith, I can create various items, but I can also buy and sell weapons and armor at good prices, I can easily notice cracks and weaknesses in metal items, I know who to talk to when searching for a specific weapon, I can deduce where a weapon comes from and how it has been used (and maybe even what special powers it holds). Suddenly, it's not just a background, it's an important asset in various situations, social, exploratory and combat ones.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top