D&D 5E Thoughts on 5e skills.

[iserith]

You can see this on the recent Twitch streams.

Don't get me started.

 

[Satyrn]

both A) has an easy solution or B) is. . .

My brain's English compilier just short circuited.

 

[akr71]

I'm surprised that Athletics is not on there for grappling and climbing/jumping. I know a dex based character will try to talk you into letting them acrobat their way up a wall or rope, but I try to disuade the players from shenanigans like that.

In addition to what [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] said, the present group consists of a warlock, monk and ninja (monk/assassin multi-class). They realize that Str (& by default - Athletics) is not their strong suite and look for other ways to accomplish their tasks.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then you don't need skills at all, by that reasoning. Which is fine.

But also consider that a player taking proficiency in a skill is doing so as a form of identification for the character. "I envision my character as X, Y, Z, therefore I am taking THIS skill." You could also say that a player taking a given skill is telling the DM in so many words what kind of content he or she wants to see. (Though personally, I'm of a mind that a player should build a character appropriate for the game the DM is presenting instead of taking something in hopes the DM includes particular content, but nevermind.)

Of course you need skills. Saying that you can do any activity in the game without a skill for it isn't an argument that no skills ever are needed. It's an argument that not all activities need directly mapped to a skill.

If one wanted to make the case that no skills ever are needed you would not just need to show that you can play without any skills but also that there is a benefit to doing so. I'm not advocating the later. I believe there is a benefit for an RPG to have skills, but not because they are needed to perform or resolve some action a player takes. The benefit is in having more granularity to activities that are going to affect the campaign. If an activity is going to only have a very minor impact on the campaign then that same level of granularity isn't needed and if a check is ever needed for such an activity then it can be resolved by just using the stat and possibly the most similar skill in the game to the activity in question. However, if certain checks are going to be very important or used often then having that granularity around them is very useful.

For example. Why doesn't anyone ever worry about D&D 5e not having a cooking skill? What about a blackmail skill? What about a lockpicking skill? A trap disabling skill?

And yet for some reason I find resistance (and from you of all people) when I suggest animal handling and acrobatics and possibly performance should fall into the same category as the above examples?

Not everything a character can do or wants to be good at needs covered by a skill. A character may be a great cook due to their background writeup. While there is no cooking skill and there should never be a cooking skill IMO, there are other ways to bring that background to life. Advantage on any check involving cooking is one. A ribbon ability that says everyone always likes your food. And here's the thing, if cooking is going to only have a very minor impact on your campaign then these abilities don't even need a cost or a tradeoff involved with them. You can just give out a few cool things like that to enhance the various players role playing experiences. However, if somehow you were going to make a campaign where cooking would play a large role then by all means add a cooking skill in as an option. At that point the granularity probably matters enough to make it a benefit!

The point is, once you understand these things you will see that just having a skill for the sake of a skill isn't a good plan. It limits choices instead of invites creativity. I only get a limited number of skills. I can only make my character skilled in so many areas. If almost everything is handled by a skill I can't have the good cook flavor in a campaign where cooking doesn't matter without sacrificing a skill that's useful for that campaign. Right there my creativity just got limited by being forced to sacrifice something useful for a very subpar ability to create the character I want to create. That isn't really a "fair" or "good" way to get players to actually create a quirky and interesting character because it outright penalizes them mechanically for doing so.

 

[S'mon]

Athletics is definitely a Tier I skill; it's used frequently in combat.

 

[S'mon]

Of course you need skills. Saying that you can do any activity in the game without a skill for it isn't an argument that no skills ever are needed. It's an argument that not all activities need directly mapped to a skill.

If one wanted to make the case that no skills ever are needed you would not just need to show that you can play without any skills but also that there is a benefit to doing so.

I run my 5e Sword & Sorcery Wilderlands game w/out skills, I basically use the 5e DMG class-based-proficiency variant, and it works great especially for online play (had trouble with "make an investigation check" "wut? how?") - I just say "Roll WIS+Prof" or "Roll raw WIS" and they know what to do.

 

[76512390ag12]

Performance or equivalent has been seen in campaigns I have played on or run leading to swaying a crowd or a king to the PC's side *and* vice versa.

I tend to use the Unisystem approach which is that attributes/skill pairing is just a guide and can change depending on how you are using the skill. So knowledge of great performers in history might be a Performance+WIS roll.

It's also perfectly fine to not use skills. It's all about the granularity you want at the table, and how important you want attributes to be, skills are one of the things that diminish the role of attributes.

After all. 5e is explicitly designed to support all types of D&D play.. there really is a default YMMV and no One True Way in 5e.

Me, love that lean skill list.



Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

 

[MNblockhead]

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?

Not sure I understand what you mean by "impact on the campaign." If you mean does it add to the enjoyment of the game and/or is it meaningful in enough game sessions to make it worth having, then yes.

For example, a character with the Entertainer background, or a Bard, can use performance to negotiate free lodging, make some additional coin, and win community support. These are very useful and can make such a character an extremely useful member of a party in Tier One play.

Other examples:

Creating distractions. A good performance will captivate an audience, making them less likely to notice other party members sneaking into a building, or the rogue picking their pockets, etc.

Winning over the crowd to help bring peer pressure to bear when trying to persuade, deceive, or intimidate. Performance can enhance or be a great backup if you are trying to persuade or deceive someone in front of an audience. Let's say you need to talk your way past a guard and there are important people nearby who can overhear you. Maybe you roll crap on your persuasion or deception but your performance roll is so good that the "crowd" exerts pressure on the guard. Maybe a high performance roll will give you advantage on your persuade/perception/intimidation roll.

Downtime Activity — you performance to help sow rumors or change community opinions and stereotypes

The deranged Sultan who has taken you prisoner requires you to tell a story every day. If it bores him, he kills you. You need to keep him entertained until you can be saved or find your own escape.

The Devil Went Down to Georgia: You are "Jonny" the renowned bard. You are challenged to a musical duel — if you win, you get a highly powerful music relic; if not, the devil gets your soul.

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?

I still find it useful to allow someone to build a character proficient in feats of strength. Holding a door closed, bending jail-cell bars, lifting very heavy objects, pushing heavy items, pulling heavy items. Yes, you can make a strength check, but you can also say that through a hard life or through disciplined conditioning, you have something more than just your strength. You have technique. You know how to avoid injuring yourself. So you get to add your proficiency bonus.

Similarly, someone may be naturally agile, but you should be able to build a character where you can add your proficiency bonus to feats of dexterity.

This is all athletics and acrobatics are for. If you take them away, how to you distinguish the conditioned strongman and experience circus performer from just a naturally strong or dexterous person?

For example the book lists other dexterity checks:
pick a lock,
disable a trap,

Sure, but if you want to bring in your proficiency bonus, you still need proficiency in thieves tools for these.

steer a chariot around a tight turn.

In my game, "land vehicle" proficiency is a thing and for something like a chariot, I may consider it a "tool" that you can gain proficiency in. Animal handling may come into play here as well. For complex activity like chariot racing, the DM just has to make a judgement call. I try to find ways for character to bring in their proficiency bonuses if they make a good argument for it. I like that 5e does this with a small number of "skills". I think the balance is good.

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 athletics?

That's fine. You can have no proficiency in acrobatics and still try to walk a tightrope. If your dexterity is high enough, you may have a high likelihood of succeeding. Again, any character can try to do anything covered by any skill will just a raw ability check roll.

Maybe what would work better for you would be to scrap the proficiency mechanic altogether. Or, keep the proficiency mechanic, but remove skills and just leave it to DM discretion on a case by case basis based on character background whether they can add their proficiency bonus to an ability check. I think that would be confusing to new players and unsatisfying to most players.

I'm happy with the skills as is and they have not been an issue for my players.

 

[iserith]

Of course you need skills. Saying that you can do any activity in the game without a skill for it isn't an argument that no skills ever are needed. It's an argument that not all activities need directly mapped to a skill.

They really aren't needed though. Ability checks can resolve tasks without skill or tool proficiencies attached. I believe older editions of D&D worked fine in this fashion.

If one wanted to make the case that no skills ever are needed you would not just need to show that you can play without any skills but also that there is a benefit to doing so. I'm not advocating the later. I believe there is a benefit for an RPG to have skills, but not because they are needed to perform or resolve some action a player takes. The benefit is in having more granularity to activities that are going to affect the campaign. If an activity is going to only have a very minor impact on the campaign then that same level of granularity isn't needed and if a check is ever needed for such an activity then it can be resolved by just using the stat and possibly the most similar skill in the game to the activity in question. However, if certain checks are going to be very important or used often then having that granularity around them is very useful.

Since campaigns vary in terms of content depending on table preferences and DM, then doesn't that argue for a more exhaustive list of skill proficiencies that a DM can tailor to fit what he or she is going for?

For example. Why doesn't anyone ever worry about D&D 5e not having a cooking skill? What about a blackmail skill? What about a lockpicking skill? A trap disabling skill?

A DM could easily implement any of these skills into his or her campaign with the existing system if, say, cooking was important to the campaign's theme for some reason. Blackmailing someone seems implicit in Intimidation. Lockpicking and trap disabling are covered by a tool proficiency.

And yet for some reason I find resistance (and from you of all people) when I suggest animal handling and acrobatics and possibly performance should fall into the same category as the above examples?

Me "of all people?" What does that mean?

And I'm not resisting what you want to do, provided it's just for your own campaign. I think the current list is fine for the campaigns I run.

Not everything a character can do or wants to be good at needs covered by a skill.

...

The point is, once you understand these things you will see that just having a skill for the sake of a skill isn't a good plan.

Who is arguing either of these points? Not me, certainly.

Question: Do players get to decide if they make an ability check in your games e.g. "I want to make a Performance check to impress the king..." or "I draw my sword and threaten his life - I got an 18 Intimidation check."

 

[Satyrn]

They really aren't needed though. Ability checks can resolve tasks without skill or tool proficiencies attached. I believe older editions of D&D worked fine in this fashion.

Tools . . . hmm.

Y'know - all y'all - I think I want to drop the skills (just give proficiency in two Ability scores as mentioned earlier) but keep tools so there's still a sense of granularity to what an individual character knows. I guess I'd need to twist the rules, though, so that what's currently a Dexterity (Thieves' Tools) check becomes a Thieves' Tool (Dexterity) check to make the tool proficiency actually matter.