D&D 5E Required Class Skills

5ekyu · Jul 16, 2019

Fanaelialae said:
What about Athletics? Hard to imagine a ranger who can't climb a tree or swim across a river.

What about Animal Handling? Calming a spooked horse seems like it should in their wheelhouse.

Include these skills on the "required" list and the ranger player doesn't get to make any choices regarding skills whatsoever. That makes each ranger a cookie-cutter character wrt skills. Which is rather boring IMO.

I think allowing players freedom of creativity is more important than making sure they are doing it "right". I realize that many DMs/designers have the impetus to say, "you're doing it wrong, give it here". However, the PC is the one piece of the game world the belongs to the player. As such, the player's vision regarding their character takes precedence over the DM's, IMO. Maybe the player wants to be less Aragorn and more a military scout. In that case, a different skill may take priority over Nature, and it's not our place as DMs to tell those players that they are doing it "wrong".

Most of the times, players will choose the skills you listed, or a very similar set. IME, players will play to type much more often than against. That said, I'm still of the opinion that they should have the freedom to choose themselves, rather than the DM making those choices for them.

Honestly, just looking at the sub-classes much les the many different imaginable concepts for woodland guy with weapons and magic leave me with much broader view of skills than that three or four "hhnter/scouts" that were claimed as "or not a ranger".

This gets even broader when one thinks of multi-classing and many concepts there.

While I could get behind the "when you get to 10th and get the stealth driven festure, gain the proficiency if you dont already have it" the more this drive for front loading with skills the ranger dip goes and the more it turns into "help my preference concept get more" the less it seems to carry much value to me to offset the loss in differentiation and choice.

Fanaelialae · Jul 16, 2019

Horwath said:
You can still have more skills with race/background.

Elf; starts with perception, so that frees up one skill to choose from Athletics, animal handling, acrobatics, medicine.
Half elf; gives 2 skills to pick free also,
variant human; one skill,

background give 2 fixed skills or one(maybe two) that overlaps with suggested 4 fixed skills so it also give one or two skills free to pick or two fixed in background that complement rangers abilities.

Rangers get 3 skills from class. 2 from background. Race grants 0 to 2 additional skills.

Along with my additions to the "required" list, we're at 6 skills total. Which is one more than the ranger normally gets, including background, unless they are one of the three races that grant extra skills. Even then, only the half elf actually gets to pick a skill of their own choosing.

I'll say it again, I don't think that we (DMs) should be dictating skill choices to players. Just because you see the ranger one way, doesn't mean that the player's creative vision for THEIR character conforms to it.

"Sorry Joe, but your meat-head fighter only has an intelligence of 11. I'm not allowing Sage as your background. Come up with a different background. Preferably one involving carrying heavy rocks and hitting things because that's all I see fighters doing." :/

Horwath · Jul 16, 2019

Fanaelialae said:
Rangers get 3 skills from class. 2 from background. Race grants 0 to 2 additional skills.

Along with my additions to the "required" list, we're at 6 skills total. Which is one more than the ranger normally gets, including background, unless they are one of the three races that grant extra skills. Even then, only the half elf actually gets to pick a skill of their own choosing.

I'll say it again, I don't think that we (DMs) should be dictating skill choices to players. Just because you see the ranger one way, doesn't mean that the player's creative vision for THEIR character conforms to it.

"Sorry Joe, but your meat-head fighter only has an intelligence of 11. I'm not allowing Sage as your background. Come up with a different background. Preferably one involving carrying heavy rocks and hitting things because that's all I see fighters doing." :/

I understand what you mean,

That is why ranger should get 4 skills(same as rogue) but the price is that those 4 skills are fixed. Use background/race to pick other skills.

Also the 11 Int and Sage background is OK, but I would ban the background for character of 8 int to be honest

Fanaelialae · Jul 16, 2019

Horwath said:
I understand what you mean,

That is why ranger should get 4 skills(same as rogue) but the price is that those 4 skills are fixed. Use background/race to pick other skills.

Also the 11 Int and Sage background is OK, but I would ban the background for character of 8 int to be honest

I played a monk with the Hermit background who had an 8 Int. Despite my low intelligence, I focused heavily on knowledge based skills, even taking two feats that granted extra skills.

He was a former street tough who had angered the wrong people and gone on the run. By pure chance, he stumbled across a lost elven library and it's caretaker, and spent over a decade studying under the librarian's tutelage. When the caretaker passed away, he returned to civilization (and joined the party).

He was a fun character. I explained his low intelligence as the many blows to the head he'd suffered as a thug. He was a grumpy and terse old man who would occasionally start spouting lore to the astonishment of his younger companions. Sure, he was by no means an optimized character, but he was competent and more importantly FUN!

It would have been a shame if the DM had denied my concept. We would have all missed out on experiencing a great character. He brought a lot to the table.

Horwath · Jul 16, 2019

Fanaelialae said:
I played a monk with the Hermit background who had an 8 Int. Despite my low intelligence, I focused heavily on knowledge based skills, even taking two feats that granted extra skills.

He was a former street tough who had angered the wrong people and gone on the run. By pure chance, he stumbled across a lost elven library and it's caretaker, and spent over a decade studying under the librarian's tutelage. When the caretaker passed away, he returned to civilization (and joined the party).

He was a fun character. I explained his low intelligence as the many blows to the head he'd suffered as a thug. He was a grumpy and terse old man who would occasionally start spouting lore to the astonishment of his younger companions. Sure, he was by no means an optimized character, but he was competent and more importantly FUN!

It would have been a shame if the DM had denied my concept. We would have all missed out on experiencing a great character. He brought a lot to the table.

haha,
I played similar monk, well he was a High elf and had 14 Int

, Wis and Con took a hit for it.

But he also had knowledge skills and constantly was (elvenlike) condescending to party "fighters" as not knowing how to fight and I was always throwing in quotes from Sun Tzu's The Art of War.

SkidAce · Jul 16, 2019

Fanaelialae said:
I'll say it again, I don't think that we (DMs) should be dictating skill choices to players. Just because you see the ranger one way, doesn't mean that the player's creative vision for THEIR character conforms to it.

quoted for truth...

The Green Hermit · Jul 25, 2019

bedir than said:
there are also zero hard-coded background skills. Nothing about backgrounds is hard coded.

The PH clearly states to pick another skill if that skill has already been given.

The Green Hermit · Jul 25, 2019

Fanaelialae said:
I think it's fine. IME, a wizard without Arcana or a ranger/rogue without Stealth is a rarity. In these cases, simply ask the player why their character never learned this core skill. It's likely that their response will be something you can incorporate into the game down the line.

I like this.

fanaelialae said:
As for rangers and rogues having features that interact with skills they might not have, I think that's fine too. AFAIK, there's nothing about those features that requires you to be proficient with the skill. Being proficient simply makes those features more reliable. If a player wants to be the least stealthy ranger or rogue in the world, it doesn't bother me in the least.

The first time I played D&D, we had a Rogue that managed to spring traps every single time. It made for a lot of fun.

Fenris-77 · Jul 25, 2019

A Ranger with decent Dex isn't not stealthy if he doesn't have proficiency, he's just not a ninja. Just like a Ranger with 14 WIS is a decent handler of animals, noticer of things, diviner of intent, dispenser of band-aids, and survivor of weekend camping trips. All without proficiency. The basic skill set is baked into the ability mods, not the chosen skill proficiencies.