D&D 5E Thoughts on 5e skills.

[FrogReaver]

Overall I like 5e's notion of less skills. However, IMO there's some skills that are next to pointless and would be better handled by class or background ribbon style abilities.

*Animal Handling.
*Performance.
*Acrobatics.
These abilities are probably the least useful in the game and likely could have either been rolled into another ability like Insight for Animal Handling or Persuasion for Performance or Athletics for Acrobatics or they could have been left as straight stat checks instead of having an associated skill. You could tie a ribbon ability to a background or class to buff these types of abilities if that was really desired and leave them out of the skill system entirely.

*Semi useful abilities
Athletics
All knowledge skills
Medicine
Investigation
Sleight of Hand

*Very useful skills
Deception
Persuasion
Intimidation
Survival
Perception
Insight
Stealth


I wish every class got the option of expertise in some limited subset of skills. Like wizards can pick between arcana and investigation expertise. Fighters can pick athletics or stealth. Rangers automatically get perception and survival. ETC.

 

[FrogReaver]

I also think there should be more "states" based on whether you are trained.

untrained and trained - both would fail task so no check
untrained would fail task so no check. trained could pass task so gets check.
untrained and trained - both get check
untrained gets check. trained automatically passes.

This would help further diversify the skill system IMO and make what skills you are proficient in even more important. It could help all the skills be more balanced just by giving the DM the option of only allowing people trained in a skill to even have a chance of success at certain tasks. Such things probably would come up more with the physical style and knowledge style skills. It could also help gate the number of players that perform a particular task so the DM isn't essentially giving the party quadruple advantage on knowing a thing (it's almost guaranteed 1 player of 4 rolls high when every member of the party makes a knowledge check).

Anyways, just some thoughts

 

[hastur_nz]

Acrobatics is very useful when your Rogue gets grappled.
Performance seems to get used enough in games I've run or played in.
Handle Animal isn't used as much, simply because Domesticated Animals don't feature in most D&D games, as much as they should or could, e.g. 5e in particular makes riding a horse more of a chore of flavour choice than an advantage like it was in real life.
They are all skills I'm personally happy to leave in.

As for adjudication of skill checks, it's completely fine for DM's to rule along the lines you propose, you don't need detailed rules to codify DM adjudication, i.e. player wants to accomplish something, DM decides IF they need to roll, and if so WHAT Skill and DC. For example, training in a skill or tool might be enough to automatically succeed - it's DM judgement. The fact that some DM's make players roll for everything... well, that's their call, but it's not what 5e intended, DM should only call for a dice roll when the outcome is in doubt. Look through some of the Angry GM's posts on adjudicating actions, if you want the 5000-word versions...

 

[Henry]

I don't have a problem with 5e's list of skills - i still see a need to break out acrobatics from athletics, for the same reason Strength and Dex are separate scores, for instance. My biggest annoyance ever since Star Wars Saga and 4e is the lack of customization of skills, you're either trained or you're not, and bounded accuracy makes it harder to differentiate between level of effort. At least the OP's system of having some things dependent of being trained or not for auto-success is a good way without just shoving bonuses,

 

[MNblockhead]

I also think there should be more "states" based on whether you are trained.

untrained and trained - both would fail task so no check
untrained would fail task so no check. trained could pass task so gets check.
untrained and trained - both get check
untrained gets check. trained automatically passes.

This would help further diversify the skill system IMO and make what skills you are proficient in even more important. It could help all the skills be more balanced just by giving the DM the option of only allowing people trained in a skill to even have a chance of success at certain tasks. Such things probably would come up more with the physical style and knowledge style skills. It could also help gate the number of players that perform a particular task so the DM isn't essentially giving the party quadruple advantage on knowing a thing (it's almost guaranteed 1 player of 4 rolls high when every member of the party makes a knowledge check).

Anyways, just some thoughts

So long as you don't need to record more character information, then I like this. I would not, however, want this to be a level system where MORE training changes give more benefits. I think the proficiency bonus increase is an elegant way of capturing increase skill abilities a minimum amount of record keeping.

As long as "having proficiency" in a skill means having training, you already have everything you need on a character sheet to implement your system.

I think many DMs already do this informally. If a player wants to do some leaps and flips to show off to some kids, if he is skilled in acrobatics I won't make him roll. He is skilled and not much is at stake and there are no unusual pressures. However, someone without that skill would still need to make the roll.

Somethings are obviously too difficult regardless of training. Somethings are so easy that no check is needed.

About the only thing in your suggestion that many DMs may not do is day that there are actions requiring a skill check that only some who is proficient in it can even try. Personally, I would avoid this. I don't like telling my players that they can't try anything. If it is not impossible for everyone then even an untrained character can roll a nat. 20. Some of the fumiest scenes in the game (and real live for that matter) is when the untrained succeeds where the trained fail.

 

[MNblockhead]

I don't have a problem with 5e's list of skills - i still see a need to break out acrobatics from athletics, for the same reason Strength and Dex are separate scores, for instance. My biggest annoyance ever since Star Wars Saga and 4e is the lack of customization of skills, you're either trained or you're not, and bounded accuracy makes it harder to differentiate between level of effort. At least the OP's system of having some things dependent of being trained or not for auto-success is a good way without just shoving bonuses,

I also think that the skill list in 5e is fine. I am surprised that the OP finds "Performance" not useful. I've found it very useful in games I play and run. Probably a just a matter of different play styles and interests.

The one that I have struggled with is Athletics and Acrobatics. Since strength AND dexterity are needed in BOTH acrobatics and athletics and acrobatics is a subset of athletics. But once I get past the semantics (I don't know what would be betters terms to use), I realize that mechanically it is helpful to having sporty feats of strength separate from sporty feats of dexterity. While most of the time, I'll let the player choose whichever work best for him, so long as he can describe his action in a way that makes it either more strength-dependent or dexterity-dependent, there are times where only one will do.

Tight-rope walking? Acrobatics. Proficiency in athletics will not help you.

Rolling a boulder out of the way? Athletics. Proficiency in acrobatics will not help you.

While you COULD just say STR and DEX on their own handle that, I do think that training and experience make a huge different. Being really strong is NOT the same as being a "strong man". Being light on your feet is not the same as a trapeze artist.

 

[FrogReaver]

Acrobatics is very useful when your Rogue gets grappled.

The same effect could easily be accomplished by making breaking out of a grapple dependent on athletics and the higher of strength or dex. It's not very fair to say a suggested change wouldn't work in the rules as is when it both A) has an easy solution or B) is assumed that rules involving the specified skills would need changed or modified in some way by changing or removing the skills.

Performance seems to get used enough in games I've run or played in.

Yep. I've seen it used a lot to. It still is a pointless skill because it almost never impacts an adventure in any meaningful way. It's just a pointless skill that some people find flavorful. So why have it as a separate skill instead of just a charisma check or a persuasion check?

Handle Animal isn't used as much, simply because Domesticated Animals don't feature in most D&D games, as much as they should or could, e.g. 5e in particular makes riding a horse more of a chore of flavour choice than an advantage like it was in real life.
They are all skills I'm personally happy to leave in.

Why leave them in? Does anyone at your table take or use them? Why bother with something that isn't taken or used? Why have a dedicated skill to something that is so little a part of the game? Consider that every skill you add in is one more thing that your character will be terrible at for not taking. For example if 5e had 100 skills and you only chose 5 then you would be terrible at a ton of things. If 5e only had 6 skills and you chose 5 then you will be great at almost everything. There's a balance to be had and adding in skills that rarely come up or could easily be rolled into another skill with little harm and skills that are overly specific in the tasks they help with just doesn't get you to that sweet spot with skills.

As for adjudication of skill checks, it's completely fine for DM's to rule along the lines you propose, you don't need detailed rules to codify DM adjudication, i.e. player wants to accomplish something, DM decides IF they need to roll, and if so WHAT Skill and DC.

I disagree. You need explicit rules to detail those options as valid choices for DM's otherwise there is nothing in the game to suggest that proficiency is a toggle for whether you auto succeed or get a check or not and implementing such a system would be a very major house rule. Yes houserules are fine (I shouldn't have to even say that but I know I will). But it's much better when the options are spelled out in actual rules. Even if those options were spelled out as valid options a DM would still be free to abjudicate in every situation that proficiency and non proficiency behaved the same way and it would be RAW for him to do it. So making that change still doesn't impact your game if you don't like it. In any case, this way and your way both still involve DM abjudication. I'm not sure where the complaint is coming from that my suggestion doesn't allow for DM abjucation?

For example, training in a skill or tool might be enough to automatically succeed - it's DM judgement.

Of course. However, there is no precedent in the rules that proficiency should have anything to do with whether a roll is called for or not. If that was then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As the rules stand now it would feel very arbitrary to players if a DM made no mention of it but started ruling based on my suggestion. Players wouldn't understand the system and would get confused by what is happening. It would make for a bad experience IMO. Detailing some background on how skill checks will be handled is important and having a page number in the book that mentions doing it that way is very helpful.

The fact that some DM's make players roll for everything... well, that's their call, but it's not what 5e intended, DM should only call for a dice roll when the outcome is in doubt. Look through some of the Angry GM's posts on adjudicating actions, if you want the 5000-word versions...

Well I think most agree there. I also don't think most DM's realize when they are making players roll too much. But that's basically an entirely different discussion. I'm talking more about about what skills should be included in the skill system and what should not be and if proficiency should give any additional game benefits other than just a small increase in chance of success of specific skills. I personally think proficiency should mean more than just a slightly increased chance of success. That's one reason I proposed being able to handle non-proficienct skills differently than proficient ones which isn't something the rules really touch on. Yes the DM can implement any system he wants by houserule. But saying every suggestion should be a houserule instead of in the rules is just lame.

 

[ccs]

I think if I were re-writing the system I'd make it roll UNDER the related stat. With proficiency in a skill subtracting from the d20 roll.
So:
1 always succeeds
20 always fails
Otherwise roll d20, subtract current prof. bonus. Compare to relevant stat.
= or less: success. The lower the better.
Higher than the stat: failure

Mostly because I'm lazy & dislike setting DCs.

 

[FrogReaver]

I also think that the skill list in 5e is fine. I am surprised that the OP finds "Performance" not useful. I've found it very useful in games I play and run. Probably a just a matter of different play styles and interests.

I've seen it used a lot. I've not ever seen it have an impact on a campaign. Maybe that will change. Maybe you can share a few stories of how it's been very useful in games. I'm open to change my mind. If it does end up being useful in some campaigns it should definitely stay. If it's just a RP skill that basically never is going to affect the campaign then would you agree that it's better to drop it from the skills and let performance be handled by other checks like charisma or persuasion?

The one that I have struggled with is Athletics and Acrobatics. Since strength AND dexterity are needed in BOTH acrobatics and athletics and acrobatics is a subset of athletics. But once I get past the semantics (I don't know what would be betters terms to use), I realize that mechanically it is helpful to having sporty feats of strength separate from sporty feats of dexterity. While most of the time, I'll let the player choose whichever work best for him, so long as he can describe his action in a way that makes it either more strength-dependent or dexterity-dependent, there are times where only one will do.

Tight-rope walking? Acrobatics. Proficiency in athletics will not help you.

Rolling a boulder out of the way? Athletics. Proficiency in acrobatics will not help you.

While you COULD just say STR and DEX on their own handle that, I do think that training and experience make a huge different. Being really strong is NOT the same as being a "strong man". Being light on your feet is not the same as a trapeze artist.

I agree that they are slightly different things and some things don't make as much sense for athletics like tight rope walking. (IMO those things could be implemented as a dexterity check).

Acrobatics is about staying on your feat in "tricky" situations. For most use cases, Athletics skill + dexterity will work great! In a few like tight rope walking it doesn't. I don't think tight rope walking is a good enough reason for the skills to be separated.

The thing to remember is, skills in D&D aren't just about simulating reality. There's a lot of nuance to everything that d&d doesn't capture. In general it's not worth having a separate skill just to try and capture some of that nuance when there's so much left uncaptured and really nuanced skill systems just don't seem to work well IMO.

So what is the benefit to gameplay of having both athletics and acrobatics in the game? I understand the logical consideration you mentioned but skills aren't being put in the game anymore like 3.5e did them (a skill for everything and every nuance) and thank GOD! So besides the explanation that athletics doesn't cover absolutely everything that acrobatics can cover, is there any other reason we need them separated?

For example the book lists other dexterity checks:
pick a lock,
disable a trap,
steer a chariot around a tight turn.

Why not also have listed in there,
walk a tightrope
etc

Wouldn't that cover pretty much the few skills that couldn't easily be rolled into atheletics?

 

[FrogReaver]

So long as you don't need to record more character information, then I like this. I would not, however, want this to be a level system where MORE training changes give more benefits. I think the proficiency bonus increase is an elegant way of capturing increase skill abilities a minimum amount of record keeping.

As long as "having proficiency" in a skill means having training, you already have everything you need on a character sheet to implement your system.

I think many DMs already do this informally. If a player wants to do some leaps and flips to show off to some kids, if he is skilled in acrobatics I won't make him roll. He is skilled and not much is at stake and there are no unusual pressures. However, someone without that skill would still need to make the roll.

Somethings are obviously too difficult regardless of training. Somethings are so easy that no check is needed.

About the only thing in your suggestion that many DMs may not do is day that there are actions requiring a skill check that only some who is proficient in it can even try. Personally, I would avoid this. I don't like telling my players that they can't try anything. If it is not impossible for everyone then even an untrained character can roll a nat. 20. Some of the fumiest scenes in the game (and real live for that matter) is when the untrained succeeds where the trained fail.

Good considerations. Just FYI. I intended that suggestion to work with the current proficiency system. So nothing additional for players to track. The DM may have to make to make a small additional note regarding if he wants there to be a difference between proficiency and non-proficiency for a specific obstacle.

Like climbing a very steep mountain may only be allowed by those proficient in athletics and it may require them breaking a 15 DC. Of course they can drop a rope down to their comrades if they succeed

I get not wanting to say no to players. I don't advocate saying no. I would just advocate narrating the results. The player can say his character attempts to climb the mountain even though he is not proficient in atheletics. Obviously you know he will fail because of that and then you narrate how he fails and maybe mention that if he was more athletic he may could have succeeded to hint to the other players the requirement. (Alternatively you could instead lighten the condition of auto failure to requiring a natural 20 if you want a game where they still get a chance to succeed).