D&D 5E 5e Skills whats your opinion

Jefe Bergenstein · Feb 3, 2016

Draegn said:
We've added additional skills to our game. Without including language skills we use 170 different skills.

Do you give a huge number of additional skill selections? Otherwise this just decreases competency through skill bloat. Previously, because there was no underwater basket weaving skill, you'd just make a stat check, and the DC would be lower because someone couldnt get proficiency. Once you add the skill, the DC tends to rise, to where you NEED the skill to be as good as you were before it was implemented.

Jefe Bergenstein · Feb 3, 2016

NotActuallyTim said:
I dislike the athletics skill. Taking away from it results in an annoying system with lots of unnecessary skills . Leaving it as is makes it too strong. It needs an optional rule for breaking the athletics skills into many smaller skills.

LOL, show me on the doll where the jock wedgied you. We had this garbage in 3rd edition, where if you wanted to make a physically competent character you had to blow all your skill points. For some reason gamers are willing to believe that learning how to just jump is equally time consuming as learning to be a surgeon. Jumping AND running? Man, you could get like 5 PhD's in that time!

Athletics is fine. Acrobatics could stand to double for some uses however (climbing/jumping).

NotActuallyTim · Feb 3, 2016

ehren37 said:
LOL, show me on the doll where the jock wedgied you. We had this garbage in 3rd edition, where if you wanted to make a physically competent character you had to blow all your skill points. For some reason gamers are willing to believe that learning how to just jump is equally time consuming as learning to be a surgeon. Jumping AND running? Man, you could get like 5 PhD's in that time!

Athletics is fine. Acrobatics could stand to double for some uses however (climbing/jumping).

Athletics is mechanically too strong. Acrobatics is fine.

Jefe Bergenstein · Feb 3, 2016

Imaro said:
2. What's weird about tool proficiencies? I've seen this complaint before and I just don't understand it... could you expound?

Tool proficiency is the kind of awkward side system of skills. In general, most of them seem to be fluff/ribbons, but then you have Thieve's Tools, which reigns supreme among them in most campaigns in terms of usefulness. There's the issue of the disconnect between musical instrument tool proficiency and perform... so the guy can play an instrument, just not give a performance with that instrument? Then there's the fact that tool proficiency doesn't seem to contain any knowledge behind it. Like how do you know how to make all these things with an herbalism kit, but have no knowledge of herbs, which is covered under Nature? Like, in a super sim game, sure you might have people who *only* know those two recipes and nothing else, but 5E uses a wider umbrella of competency, and it feels odd to have these few specific granular areas.

The most elegant design would have been ditching Tool proficiency as a concept, and just having them be things you apply your skill with (like they do with medicine and the healer's kit, or athletics and the climbers kit). It feels like a half-assed version of the secondary skill system, or the fluff skills you get in Shadowrun (comic book lore, craft brewing, baking).

Jefe Bergenstein · Feb 3, 2016

NotActuallyTim said:
Athletics is mechanically too strong. Acrobatics is fine.

For, I assume... reasons?

Azurewraith · Feb 3, 2016

I never realized the tool issue was so bad. I mean when my player asks what does my tool Prof do the answer is "not alot". We have used the tools just well for other things such as taking samples skinning stuff like that

nails144 · Feb 3, 2016

I think a few folks in here are forgetting that the rules in this game are all optional at the discretion of the DM. If you don't like the way athletics is working in your game, change it. If you feel like a new skill would would improve your game, ad it, and develop a way for the players to learn and use it. You can scrap the entire system if you like and build your own.

Bottom line is this: It is YOUR game, so if something doesn't work for you, change it.

I personally think the current skill system is fine. It is really more about having a DM who is thoughtful in how he/she allows players to apply their skills. This is the first edition where I feel like my players have a decent chance of accomplishing a much wider array of tasks because the DC's and skill requirements do not scale so sharply.

Dormouse · Feb 3, 2016

I don't like skills.

They foster min-maxxing. If I have a character who has a high dex but a low int, I will probably take proficiency in a bunch of dex skills but not int skills, which just pushes me further into extremes. This has a negative effect on the game where a DM might set a high DC so the warlock with +9 persuasion gets a reasonable challenge, but now all the other characters feel like talking is pointless.

I also don't really see what it adds. If I want to play a knowledgeable character, I can just give him a high int. Do I really need to be proficient in Arcana, History, or Nature to feel like my character is learned?

NotActuallyTim · Feb 3, 2016

ehren37 said:
For, I assume... reasons?

Athletics broad capabilities skew the entire skill system. It's by far more useful than every other skill in 5E, simply in terms of the many, many different activities it permits characters to engage in (swimming, running, jumping, wrestling, climbing, and marathoning. If DnD had bikes and basketball, Athletics would probably handle those as well).

It's like that for a good reason: because breaking it up into smaller skills annoys players who don't want to take a million different skills. However, not breaking it up also annoys players who dislike unbalanced skill systems, in which one skill is more likely to be useful than every other skill in the entirety of the game. Hey, everybody, take Athletics so you can outrun the things that want kill you! Screw Medicine, we a have Cleric! To hell with Knowledge skills, we have Diviners! Don't take Animal Handling, that's what summoning spells are for! Intimidation? Just stab people. If they aren't scared after that, stab em again! etc.

Every other skill is situational, or replaceable. But even in a game with Jump and Expeditious Retreat, Athletics is powerful enough to be useful, which puts it miles ahead of everything else. It is 100% the no brainer skill.

Imaro · Feb 3, 2016

ehren37 said:
Tool proficiency is the kind of awkward side system of skills. In general, most of them seem to be fluff/ribbons, but then you have Thieve's Tools, which reigns supreme among them in most campaigns in terms of usefulness. There's the issue of the disconnect between musical instrument tool proficiency and perform... so the guy can play an instrument, just not give a performance with that instrument? Then there's the fact that tool proficiency doesn't seem to contain any knowledge behind it. Like how do you know how to make all these things with an herbalism kit, but have no knowledge of herbs, which is covered under Nature? Like, in a super sim game, sure you might have people who *only* know those two recipes and nothing else, but 5E uses a wider umbrella of competency, and it feels odd to have these few specific granular areas.

1. Fluff/ribbons: I think this is fine, especially with how wide open the selection is of skills/Prof is for all classes and backgrounds. But then I believe any skill or proficiency can be weak if the DM doesn't allow for opportunities to use it... even Thieve's tools when traps are rare.

2. Performance is a Charisma check...that broadly covers all types of performances...while proficiency with a musical instrument only applies while using that specific instrument...in all instances according to the PHB so yes it would apply if he performed with the instrument

3. Well people can use first aid kits without the knowledge of a doctor or nurse... but the fact is that nothing stops you from making a Nature check in the game (which is just an Intelligence check)... you just don't add proficiency to it

It doesn't feel off to me but I think I view skills differently from you.

ehren37 said:
The most elegant design would have been ditching Tool proficiency as a concept, and just having them be things you apply your skill with (like they do with medicine and the healer's kit, or athletics and the climbers kit). It feels like a half-assed version of the secondary skill system, or the fluff skills you get in Shadowrun (comic book lore, craft brewing, baking).

Disagree here. Playing a single instrument well(without necessarily being a great actor or dancer) is a bit of a fantasy trope so I'm glad it's possible to replicate it in the game.

D&D 5E 5e Skills whats your opinion

Jefe Bergenstein

Legend

Jefe Bergenstein

Legend

NotActuallyTim

First Post

Jefe Bergenstein

Legend

Jefe Bergenstein

Legend

Azurewraith

Explorer

nails144

First Post

Dormouse

First Post

NotActuallyTim

First Post

Imaro

Legend

Similar Threads