One thing that I’d like to see in the new edition that a lot of DMs do anyway, is that certain skill rolls require training to be able to attempt: for instance, in order to attempt to decipher the runes, you need training in Arcana.
The general rule concerning checks also applies: you can only attempt a check if you have a chance of success. My experience on the forums and with more first-time DMs is that this guidance is insufficient, specific guidance concerning skill rolls would be helpful.
The problem is, by RAW characters make ability checks for everything and when the situation warrants it (by DM discretion) a Skill proficiency can be added as a bonus. But most of the times at the table it is played as Skill checks and ability checks are ignored (except maybe strength).
No skills like Spells are designed to overcome challenges that can't be overcome with the standard roleplaying or fighting. The more liberal the DM is with the use of them the easier it is to simply bypass things with a skill check. It's not because skills are more prominant on the sheet. it's because a lazy DM, can actually turn a skill monkey into a god who just bypasses most encounters with one roll.
That's an entire different discussion We'd both probably agree on. I always hand out magic items or Dm special powers to keep the players on par. But the skill system since it's inception in 2e has always been a clunky bolt on poorly explained mess that gets run differently at different tables. some tables the DM listens to what is said , how it's roleplayed etc then takes into account the bluff check. I;ve seen other DM's just have one player roll a bluff check against another player and say you're scared you won't argue anymore. It's never worked right without constant Dm fiddling.
