D&D 5E Paring the skill list

[MoonSong]

Hmm. I'm really not sure I understand the objection: Most characters are trained in four skills. The skill list is currently at 25, plus knowledge (9 categories), plus profession (infinite categories, though most characters would only want 1). So that's 4 of 35. I've suggested removing 8 of the 35.

Your comments make it sound like I'm reducing the skill list much more than that. Nothing is threatening ability checks. Skills remain the narrow focuses you describe. If anything, my requirement to ensure necessary coverage in knowledge or profession will, I feel, actually add to the diversity, not reduce it.

Your two arguments about jumping and diplomacy have nothing to do with my post. I did not suggest rolling Jump (or swim for that matter) into Athletics, nor all social skills into Diplomacy (truth be told, I actually want a diversity of charisma skills, to reduce its dump-stattedness).



I agree with this, and have not suggested differently.

Ok, something that really has to do with your suggested reductions:

Drive, actually I can't help but feeling it is just right.

I would actually unroll Thumble into more narrower skills, if it only landed a skill set that wasn't only playable by parkour experts, so a single skill is the second best thing.

I like spot and listen as separate skills, it allows to create characters that maight have a poor vision, but still have an awesome sense of hearing. (like certain blind musician)

Conversely, I have a poor eyesight, but in the end I'm very good at finding things, those things aren't necesarilly conected.

Knowledge heraldry is fine by me, I wouldn't want to get less knowledge abilites, but rather to get more of them.

I refuse to play on a d&D without a perform skill, unless it is absent because it has Dance, Drama, Painting, Singing, Poetics, etc as individual skills instead. (Though I recognize it may be more granularity than some people are comfortable with). I fear the "wiazards are better performers than pure bards" of recent times happening all over again.

Disguise is one of the coolest-funniest skills ever, it shouldn't be exclusive to rogues.

Yes, Heal is an awesome skill, Herbalism doens't necessarily remove it, and remember it should be possible to play using backgrounds without specialties, you shouldn't try to get rid of a flavorful ability because another subsystem which won't be there all the time risks making redundant on certain situations.

War theory is a valid knowledge field, it doesn't necessarily imply leadership.

And 10, it would make a good house rule, but won't fly with all playstyles.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Hmm. I'm really not sure I understand the objection: Most characters are trained in four skills. The skill list is currently at 25, plus knowledge (9 categories), plus profession (infinite categories, though most characters would only want 1). So that's 4 of 35. I've suggested removing 8 of the 35.

Your comments make it sound like I'm reducing the skill list much more than that. Nothing is threatening ability checks. Skills remain the narrow focuses you describe. If anything, my requirement to ensure necessary coverage in knowledge or profession will, I feel, actually add to the diversity, not reduce it.

Your two arguments about jumping and diplomacy have nothing to do with my post. I did not suggest rolling Jump (or swim for that matter) into Athletics, nor all social skills into Diplomacy (truth be told, I actually want a diversity of charisma skills, to reduce its dump-stattedness).

My Jump and Diplomacy comments were meant more as just examples of what I was talking about, rather than direct refutations of your post, so my apologies if that came off wrong. That being said though... I think eliminations of ANY skills goes in the wrong direction. As a matter of fact... I think most skills should actually be exploded into even smaller parts. Reason being... I personally think that skills should be so narrow and specific that almost no single skill should ever appear on more than one PC's sheet in each party. Any skill so broad that it could easily appear on three or more character sheets? Right out! Because it shows that that particular skill has more import to the game than the Ability Check its supposed to modify. And on top of that... if three or more people are skilled in the same thing, then you lost whatever specialness you get for being really good at something.

For example... in 4E I HATE that in a typical party, three or more PCs are probably trained in "Religion". What a broad, unspecific, applicable to ANYTHING to do with the gods, skill. And what really gets my goat is that the Cleric... the supposed "divine" character... invariably has a WORSE Religion skill than the Wizard, because the Wizard has the higher INT. But this is what happens when you have a small skill list with very broad skills... invariably, each skill appears on about 1/3 of all the classes in the game. And when you only get six skills to choose from and you have to take four of them... your Trained skills are basically doubled up by one or more other PCs in the party. And when everybody doubles up on skills... why is being Trained in it any big deal?

So combining Search, Spot and Listen back into Perception? No way. Cause that means we're going to have probably two to four party members who have the Greatest Senses in the World. Which is just silly. But if one person has a great sense of danger (Spot), another has fantastic noise detection (Listen), and the last is an expert on investigation and forensics (Search), that's a bit more believable. Everyone has that one thing (or four things) they are great at over and above everyone in the party.

Truth be told... I know what I'm hoping for isn't going to actually occur. I know that things like Sneak will remain as-is, and that probably two party members per party will usually end up having it. But at the very least, I hope that WotC continues to hammer home the point that everyone can do everything by just making an Ability Check to do so. The days of needing to see a skill on your list to actually be able to do it are over. But by having a skill on top of your ability mods just means you are truly the best of the best at that specific thing. And hopefully two other party members aren't just as good at it as well.

As Syndrome said in The Incredibles: When everyone is super... no one will be.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

My group uses Heal all the time (3E) for stabilization purposes.

 

[LostSoul]

If you want to pare down the skill list, get rid of skills. Add your bonus (die) when your background would be relevant to your action.

Mechanically it's the same: the DM still decides when you get to add your bonus (die). Differences: you have less to track on your character sheet and you can't use "rules-speak" at the table - you can't say "I use Diplomacy", you'd have to be more specific about your PC's action in the game world.

 

[Sunseeker]

The Skill list should be both simplified, and expanded.
EX: Athletics.
It's a good cover-all skill.
But Climb, jump, or swim are good specific skills that a person can be better at than just Athletics.
Perception, again, good cover-all skill, but a person can be better at spot or listen.

Both the general, and the specific should be included in the skill list.
However... because that would lead to a skill list of size and scale that I really don't want to see, the actual skill list on the page(if any) should be short, like 4e. Each "general" skill should include one or two blank boxes below them for specific skills under that general skill-set that the player can be good in. I LIKE that the DDN sheet simply leaves the skill-list blank, however, I like having certain skills, at least what I've defined above as "general" skills pre-written on the page. But that's just me.

As for what should stay, Drive is irrelevant. "Handle animal" applies to it just fine, because you're not turning a joystick on the chariot, you're using the reins to control the animal. Gather Rumors sounds dumb. Bake it in to something else, or change it back to "Gather Information", which is just fine and a bit more general, otherwise throw it under the bus of "Perception - Listen". I like the return of "Perform", because it's like Profession, but more ad-hoc. I don't like "Persuade", but I understand how it is both more general, and more specific than "Diplomacy", it's a better counterpart to "Intimidate", and I think it fits better with what people use "Diplomacy" for anyway...so it's not wholly bad, just weird feeling. Ride! I do not choose you! We've got three different animal-related skills that IMO, are nothing more than skill bloat. "Ride" is obviously a subset of "Handle Animal", same with "Drive", get rid of it and stick with "Handle Animal" or stick riding under a subset of knowledge or profession. Tumble: GOODBYE! Use Rope: SEE YA! Absolutely unnecessary. First off, there's no reason Tumble and Balance are both necessary, one or the other needs to go. "Use Rope" is far too generally sourced. Use rope could come from strength, such as when pulling something; it could come from int, such as knowing a specific knot or how to rig a ship; on the same turn, both of those could apply to wisdom; even constitution can apply with say, holding a rope for a long time(pulling and holding are different physical exertions); heck when you break it down, Dexterity is about as relevant to using a rope as Charisma is!

I get that "use rope" has a lot of oldschool fans out there, but it's really an outdated skill. If you want to be really good at using rope, call it a special knowledge skill.

Right now I think the skill list is both too specific and not specific enough. I think adding in "General" skills using the raw ability as a starting point would then allow it to become more specific by adding more sub-skills. Because really, I can understand that there is an important difference between "Move Silently" and "Hide" One is sight, the other is sound, the two primary detection senses, but a player should be able to make a general "Sneak" attempt, but likewise be better at Moving Silently if they are say, light-footed or minimally armored, or Hiding if they are small or wearing dark clothing.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Ok, something that really has to do with your suggested reductions:

Thanks!

I have thoughts on some of these helpful suggestions.

I like spot and listen as separate skills, it allows to create characters that maight have a poor vision, but still have an awesome sense of hearing. (like certain blind musician)

Conversely, I have a poor eyesight, but in the end I'm very good at finding things, those things aren't necesarilly conected.

I understand this, but what you're asking for is not something that D&D has ever modelled for PCs, is it? You can have average vision and good hearing, but never poor vision. I also don't want to tie up all of a player's skills in sense perception: all elves get proficiency in Listen and Hearing, apparently, which means for a human to have Elven-equivalent senses, half of their skill palette is full. That's just another sop to elf-players, I feel, rather than an attempt to understand the skills. If it's going to be a counter to Sneak, it should be a single skill "Perception" (note in some previous editions, hide was countered by spot and move silently by listen).

Knowledge heraldry is fine by me, I wouldn't want to get less knowledge abilites, but rather to get more of them.

I'm fine with more knowledge skills, just not heraldry which overlaps with other skills. Like Defcon, I want knowledge areas to be distinct and relevant in game, and not overlapping with (in this case) History.

I refuse to play on a d&D without a perform skill, unless it is absent because it has Dance, Drama, Painting, Singing, Poetics, etc as individual skills instead. (Though I recognize it may be more granularity than some people are comfortable with). I fear the "wiazards are better performers than pure bards" of recent times happening all over again.

Fair enough -- make it a cascade skill like Profession, with an infinite number of subdivisions one of which must be identified, and I'm happy to keep it.

Disguise is one of the coolest-funniest skills ever, it shouldn't be exclusive to rogues.

Yes, Heal is an awesome skill, Herbalism doens't necessarily remove it, and remember it should be possible to play using backgrounds without specialties, you shouldn't try to get rid of a flavorful ability because another subsystem which won't be there all the time risks making redundant on certain situations.

Disguise is fun, and unfortunately it is made trivial by a first-level spell, Disguise Self. Maybe what I really want is to get rid of that spell...

I agree with you in principle on Heal, but I've not seen it (and its predecessors) used that way in play -- there's always a cleric nearby. Whizbang Dustyboots tells me otherwise, though, and so I relent.

War theory is a valid knowledge field, it doesn't necessarily imply leadership.

Not disputing this, but I feel it is better in Profession than as another overlapping field of knowledge.

And 10, it would make a good house rule, but won't fly with all playstyles.

Ha ha ha -- I couldn't disagree more. They've upped the skills in Backgrounds from 3 to 4 -- I'm saying that bump should imply a single skill in knowledge or profession or (given the above) perform. I don't see any playstyle threatened by requiring a character to know something. Nine of the sample backgrounds already qualify.

I hadn't gone after Use Rope -- maybe shindaku is right that it could be folded into one of the cascade skills (knowledge or profession).


This is helpful -- thanks.

 

[Kobold Stew]

[MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION]:

Thanks for the feedback. I agree with almost everything you say, but we draw different conclusions on how to make these general principles fit into the game. I understand your point about ability checks, and want that to be meaningful, and my suggested paring of the list works towards that, preventing silly overlap.

I also agree with you on too many people with overlapping skills (and especially with the example of multiple-Religion knowledges), though I disagree with the hyperbolic capitalization that for perception skills this means Greatest Senses in the World -- that's not the question.

The question is, how much of his or her total skill investment does a non-elven character have to invest to have comparable elven senses. You say 50%; I say less. Since both skills are given for free to elves, the question becomes how do we make it interesting for non-elven characters ever to invest in them ever at all. Your solution, to me, says we don't, and if that's the case, then we should cut all perception-based skills altogether, and make it a straightforward Wisdom check (and give a bonus to elves, if we must).

I want skills to be a meaningful way to distinguish individuals, not an unwieldy list of things that simply aren't going to be chosen.

As it is, a typical party of 4 will have 20-24 skills available between them: there are always going to be things left uncovered. You and I don't disagree that this is the right course. But bloating the list with too many skills makes a shopping list that is an obstacle to many players (especially new ones), and leads to arguments about applicability that will slow down play.

I really don't think we're that far apart.

 

[DEFCON 1]

"Use Rope" is far too generally sourced. Use rope could come from strength, such as when pulling something; it could come from int, such as knowing a specific knot or how to rig a ship; on the same turn, both of those could apply to wisdom; even constitution can apply with say, holding a rope for a long time(pulling and holding are different physical exertions); heck when you break it down, Dexterity is about as relevant to using a rope as Charisma is!

This is actually exactly why I LIKE 'Use Rope'. I personally think that any skill that doesn't default to just ONE Ability Check is much, much better than any others. In my opinion... because the way the game is set up... you tell the DM what you want to do, the DM tells you what Ability Check applies, and then you look and see if you have anything on your list that might give you a bonus... and the more universal a skill is across your abilities, the more useful and the more applicable it becomes.

So 'Use Rope' is a universal bonus to your ability scores. You want to climb down a wall and tell the DM you want to do that? He tells you it's a STR check. You say "I have a rope and a Use Rope skill, I tie the rope off and use it to help me climb down." The DM gives you the bonus to your STR check to do so.

And by the same token... you awake to find yourself captured and your hands are tied behind your back. You tell the DM you want to escape the bonds. He tells you it will be a DEX check to escape. You then say you have "Use Rope" and thus are familiar enough with most knots to be able to loosen/untie the rope from behind your back. DM says okay and gives you a bonus to your DEX check.

In both cases... you have a single focus that applies to multiple Ability Checks, as opposed to the other way, which is multiple focuses applying to a single Ability Check. And there is definitely a place for that in the system.

Someone might have Climbing... which applies to all STR checks to scale all different types of walls and the methods to do so (but ONLY scaling walls), and someone might have Sleight of Hand... which applies to all DEX checks involving manual dexterity (but ONLY manual dexterity). But then on the flipside is someone who has Use Rope, who can apply it to STR checks *and* DEX checks *and* any number of other ability checks, so long as they involve the use of rope somehow. I think that's way cool. It's like having the skill of Commerce. It's a bonus to an INT check to appraise an item, it's a CHA check bonus to haggle with a shopkeep, it's a WIS check bonus to quickly recognize different types of boxes and barrels and what might be stored within them, it's a DEX check bonus to hide a moneypurse on your person, etc. etc. etc. You are all over every aspect of dealing with money, regardless of the Ability Check that gets used.

And I think the game is better off by having a host of skills that are like that. They are much more exciting to me in trying to figure out reasons why they might apply to a situation.

 

[steeldragons]

hmmm. Lots of good points here...This seems like a good place to run what I'm thinking of as an ideal skill list passed a few discerning eyes. No threadjack intended and if it seems that way, I can always post it as a sepaate thread...

I can't say what the playtest holds. But this is, basically, what I'm looking at using/have found get used the most (in my experience). I think it is (for me) pleasingly concise while still covering a good array of things that players might want their character to be "good" at. Does this, for you all, span too far into the "too broad" and/or "too specific" and/or "unnecessary"? Too short? Too long? To vague? Missing X?

Non-Weapon Skills [what ability to use for a check, some depend on the situation]

Acrobatics [Dex. or Str.]:This skill includes all feats of gymnastics, climbing, jumping, and tumbling.
Animal Handling [Wis.]: This skill aids how “good” the PC is dealing with animals.
Appraisal [Int. or Wis.]: This skill involves the PC’s knowledge and estimation of an item’s worth and/or abilities.
Athletics [Str.]: This skill applies to such activities as involve the PC’s physical strength and fitness.
Combat Sense [Int. or Wis.]: This skill involves the PC’s alertness and a kind of ‘sixth sense’ in noticing or avoiding trouble.
Disarm Device [Dex. or Int.]: This skill involves the PC’s ability to dismantle, or at least make nonfunctional, a mechanical device, most commonly locks and traps.
Disguise [Int. or Cha.]: This skill applies to such activities as involve the PC’s ability to mask their appearance, even up close, when in plain view.
Endurance [Con.]: This skill relates to all activities that apply to the PC’s constitution: resisting disease or poison, acting in extreme temperatures, etc...
Forgery [Dex. or Int.]: This skill applies to the PC’s ability to create and discern fraudulent materials.
Gather Information [Cha. or Wis.]: This skill applies to the PC’s ability to find things out that others may or may not be willing to share.
Healing [Wis.]: This skill applies to the PC’s ability to provide simple first aid and medical techniques to themselves and others.
Insight [Wis. or Cha]:This skill involves the PC’s ability to “read between the lines”, accurately gage reactions, read body language, and/or reasonably “hear” and follow their instincts, “listening to their gut”, as it were.
Intimidate [Str. or Cha.]: This skill relates to all activities of the PC’s attempts to appear (or actually be) imposing or threatening to others
Leadership [Cha.]:This skill involves the PC’s ability to be commanding, think strategically and, to a degree, exert your will over others without, necessarily, being intimidating.
Lore [Int. or Wis.]: Lore skills are a PCs familiarity and knowledge of a given topic. The PC receives +1 to any rolls that are related to their area of interest. Common choices for Lore skills include:
--Arcane
--Geography: Local, Regional, or World (1SP each)
--History: Local, Regional, World, Ancient (1SP each)
--Language (1SP each)
--Nature
--Religion
--Other: some other specific topic: Heraldry, Herbalism, Navigation, Specific Culture, etc...
Perception [Wis. or Int.]: This skill applies to a PC’s senses and their ability to notice things through them.
Performance [variable by art form]: Like the Lore skills, the Performance skill encompasses a variety of talents. All rolls to perform these talents are made with +1. Successful rolls might be used to make money/get paid or distract opponents...or just for fun. Common choices for Performance skills include:
--Acting (comedic or dramatic): [Cha.]
--Dance (1 cultural group per skill): [Dex. or Str.]
--Instrument (1 instrument per skill): [Int. or Dex.]
--Oration: the PC is practiced with public speaking, recitation, storytelling, etc... [Cha. or Int.]
--Singing: [Cha.]
Persuasion [Cha. or Wis.]: This skill involves the PC’s effectiveness in social interactions including negotiations, pursuading others and/or attempts at bluffing/lying.
Search [Int.]: This skill involves the PC’s competency when conducting searches for just about anything: traps, secret doors, hidden compartments, noticing treasure in a pile of trash, etc...
Sleight of Hand [Dex.]: This skill applies to a PC’s ability to use nimble-fingers and quick reflexes in conjunction with misdirecting attention to a variety of effects.
Stealth [Dex. or Int.]: This skill involves the PC’s competency when trying to be sneak, hide or otherwise go unnoticed.
Streetwise [Cha. or Int.]: This skill grants the PC knowledge and ability to navigate urban areas.
Survival [Con. or Wis.]: This skill applies to the PC’s ability to find necessities (food, shelter, etc...) and navigate in wilderness or harmful environments.
Tracking [Int.]: This skill involves the PC’s ability to find and follow trails and tracks left by a creature's passage.
Weapon Mastery [Str. or Dex.]: This skill reflects the PC's ability and training with a weapon they would not normally be able to use. This can be applied like "weapon specialization" for classes who can't normally specialize in a weapon and/or for those PC concepts that step outside of class weapon norms (letting a mage use a sword but in all other ways remaining a mage, for example. Gandalf, anyone?) without requiring multi-classing.

I'm gonna guess Defcon1 isn't going to like it. lol. But what the heck, thought I'd see what people thought.

--SD

 

[bbjore]

With the emphasis on ability scores as the the main role. I wish they spent less time on skill lists and more time on making the base ability check do a better job of making characters feel like they are good in some areas and poor in others.

I think there'd be less concerns about the specific skill list, if everyone was actually happy rolling straight ability scores. Unfortunately, everyone realizes that you need the skill bonuses to be able to do more than tie your shoes effectively, so there's a lot of concern about skill list.

Fortunately it's an easy thing to make modular. Small broad list like 4E, a lot of particularly small narrow skills 2E style (I have a house rule document of over 100 skills which lets the PCs pick 4-6 every six levels or so), or a functional ability check system. Either would work, and I think each would be fairly simple to houserule according to table preference.

It's one area where I'm interesting in seeing what the end modules look like. But, honestly, I'll probably go with either straight ability checks with each PC able to pick two abilities they always start with advantage on for simple style campaigns, or a large list of narrow skills with bonuses for more complex campaigns because I like being able to say my character is skilled in bonsai trimming. I've yet to see them produce a system I like more then either of those, and like I said, skill lists are one of the easiest things to house rule.