D&D 5E Thoughts on 5e skills.

[MrHotter]

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.

That sounds good. Of course the tools proficiencies also see a huge discrepancy in usefulness in a campaign. If someone is looking for a background they may want to get one with theives tools over one with playing cards.

 

[Satyrn]

That sounds good. Of course the tools proficiencies also see a huge discrepancy in usefulness in a campaign. If someone is looking for a background they may want to get one with theives tools over one with playing cards.

So true*. Hmm. . . .

The solution might be to add in yet more tools so that there's a greater number of more useful tools. If I actually bother to do this, I might have to mine AD&D's nonweapon proficiencies for good options . . . and now it sounds like I just want to greatly expand the skill system. I'm so confused!





* and yet my gnome battlemaster, the dashing rogue of the party, has yet to actually employ his thieves' tools

 

[TheNoremac42]

Speaking of Thieves' Tools... Is that a separate check than Sleight of Hand, or would a rogue use a Sleight of Hand check to use their Thieves' Tools? I've seen DMs call for SoH checks for unlocking doors, so it's never been clear to me.

 

[Satyrn]

Speaking of Thieves' Tools... Is that a separate check than Sleight of Hand, or would a rogue use a Sleight of Hand check to use their Thieves' Tools? I've seen DMs call for SoH checks for unlocking doors, so it's never been clear to me.

No. It's meant to be a Dexterity (Thieves' Tools) check. That is, it's a Dexterity check, and you add your proficiency bonus if you are proficient with thieves' tools.

Another way to say it is "Tools are object-oriented skills."

 

[iserith]

Speaking of Thieves' Tools... Is that a separate check than Sleight of Hand, or would a rogue use a Sleight of Hand check to use their Thieves' Tools? I've seen DMs call for SoH checks for unlocking doors, so it's never been clear to me.

Sleight of Hand would be for touching the door's knob without it noticing.

 

[TheNoremac42]

Sleight of Hand would be for touching the door's knob without it noticing.

... How scandalous...

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

I've already said that any given skill can be done away with and just have stat checks. If that's how you are meaning that they aren't "needed" then I've already agreed with that pages ago. So let's not argue semantics. You know (at least by now) that when I said skills were "needed" it wasn't meant in the way you are trying to frame the discussion because I elaborated and explained exactly why I thought skills were needed and that was to add more granularity to important abilities in the campaign setting.

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?

I actually don't think an exhaustive list is needed. I think there just needs to be a blurb that a DM needs to tell the players what skills are going to be in his game and he can use his imagination or invent some if the common example skills listed in the book don't cover his campaign very well. But you are right, tailoring skills to the campaign is a big part of what I would advocate!

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.

I agree with most of this. Cooking could be added if it was important. But we are talking about how 5e handles skills and that's basically as a static list that you pick from and cooking is not there at all (and I agree that it typically shouldn't be). I agree that blackmailing can typically be handled by intimidation but it's not always a perfect and in some campaigns it might be worth differentiating those skills. Yes, thieves tools allow both of those. I'd forgotten about that because it's not actually in the 5e skills section even though it's how I've always played.

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.

But this discussion isn't about my campaign. It's about how 5e does skills. What works what doesn't. If any tweaks would be good for the system. Is 5e fun and playable as is. Of course! But that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

Listen, anytime you or anyone else comes back with something like, skill X is needed because it let's me do X things, or what you are advocating for is no skills at all, or 5e's skill list works fine as is then you are resisting even the thought of challenging the status quo.

Skills aren't made to allow anyone to do things. Skills aren't required to play the game as we both agree. Instead they are there to add some granularity and differentiation between characters. The problem with skills is that if they are implemented poorly then they actually take away freedom and interesting choices. They can become "trap options" where some are vastly superior and others are vastly inferior compared with each other. That doesn't mean we should throw skills out or that 5e did a bad job with them. But it does mean we should occasionly evaluate the state of skills in 5e and see if there is a better way going forward.

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."

Others were arguing those points. You then jumped in with on their side and argued that what I said amounted to claiming that skills weren't needed (as a way to help them defeat my argument) which wasn't my point at all, nor was a skill less game something I would advocate for and neither was what I was saying something that could be used to advocate for a skill less game on its own. Now maybe I misconstrued your intentions, but you got plenty of likes for your comment there so whether intended or not that's how others took your post.

No players do not get checks by asking for them.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

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.

Oh I agree here. The athletics skill I don't advocate for removing. In fact I've said many times that acrobatics is the one that should go away and get lumped in with it.

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.

Should I also be able to build a character where I add my proficiency bonus to feats of cooking? What about feats of cleaning? What about feats of brewing strong drinks? What about feats of screaming louder than anyone else? I can even contrive examples where all these skills could be "useful" in a campaign. That doesn't mean they should be in the campaign. Being able to build a character where you add your proficiency bonus to something is a terrible reason for adding a skill in the game. If that's the case let's bring back 3.5e skills (which I don't think anyone advocates for?). The point is contriving a few examples where a skill can shine and then further rationalizing that you need to be able to get proficiency bonuses on whatever you want doesn't make a good argument in favor of any skill.

Let me explain the difference. Athletics should be a skill because it can be taken to apply to almost anything where your character is performing physical activity. Whether it involves agility or strength athletics just makes sense. As such it's a very broad skill. Training in athletic endeavors generally helps you in other types of athletic endeavors as well. It's useful in many situations and even makes a great way to resolve whether your character can push, grapple, break a grapple etc. It's not likely that this skill will change a campaign, but it could with the right NPC. But even though it may never do that it's going to come up enough that it should be in the game.

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?

By proficiency in athletics coupled with their higher base strength or higher base dexterity. High Strength + Athletics = conditioned strongman. High Dexterity + Athletics = circus performer.

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

I quoted the book on what other dex checks there were and that's the response I get.....

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.

Some games will get more mileage out of some skills. That's why another important consideration is not just having a list of skills for everything but tailoring the list of available skills to your campaign. The balance of skills in 5e is good. Why do you think a small number of skills is better than a large number even though it means there's less mechanical differentiation for certain activities?

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.

Which is why I didn't advocate for a totally DM discretion system where skills are removed altogether. It could get confusing and would likely be unsatisfying. Why is it people keep telling me I want a skill less game and then telling me why that would be bad?

 

[iserith]

I actually don't think an exhaustive list is needed. I think there just needs to be a blurb that a DM needs to tell the players what skills are going to be in his game and he can use his imagination or invent some if the common example skills listed in the book don't cover his campaign very well. But you are right, tailoring skills to the campaign is a big part of what I would advocate!

...

But this discussion isn't about my campaign. It's about how 5e does skills. What works what doesn't. If any tweaks would be good for the system. Is 5e fun and playable as is. Of course! But that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

...

Listen, anytime you or anyone else comes back with something like, skill X is needed because it let's me do X things, or what you are advocating for is no skills at all, or 5e's skill list works fine as is then you are resisting even the thought of challenging the status quo.

I guess all you need to do is invent a time machine, go back in time, and change the D&D 5e books before they were sent off to the printer. Do me a favor while you're at it and throw in some more examples of play so that people aren't mimicking the popular podcasts and then running into trouble over the same issues.

Skills aren't made to allow anyone to do things. Skills aren't required to play the game as we both agree. Instead they are there to add some granularity and differentiation between characters. The problem with skills is that if they are implemented poorly then they actually take away freedom and interesting choices. They can become "trap options" where some are vastly superior and others are vastly inferior compared with each other. That doesn't mean we should throw skills out or that 5e did a bad job with them. But it does mean we should occasionly evaluate the state of skills in 5e and see if there is a better way going forward.

I think we should evaluate the skills that are appropriate for a particular game.

Others were arguing those points. You then jumped in with on their side and argued that what I said amounted to claiming that skills weren't needed (as a way to help them defeat my argument) which wasn't my point at all, nor was a skill less game something I would advocate for and neither was what I was saying something that could be used to advocate for a skill less game on its own. Now maybe I misconstrued your intentions, but you got plenty of likes for your comment there so whether intended or not that's how others took your post.

No players do not get checks by asking for them.

Please don't presume that there are "sides" or, even if there are "sides," that I'm on anyone's "side" but my own. Or that I'm trying to "defeat" your argument. You claim that some D&D 5e skills are "next to pointless." I would say that's because of how you run your game and is not a reflection that some sort of design change is in order.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Which is why I didn't advocate for a totally DM discretion system where skills are removed altogether. It could get confusing and would likely be unsatisfying. Why is it people keep telling me I want a skill less game and then telling me why that would be bad?

A skill-less take on 5e wouldn't be all that bad, nor all that much harder on the DM. Players would take a class & background, and the DM would judge, from that, whether they got proficiency on any given check. It wouldn't be particularly harder than judging which skill applies (or whether no skill applies), which only comes up if you decide to call for a check, in the first place...