D&D 5E Why Don't Barbarians or Fighters Get Bonus Skills?

[Falling Icicle]

One thing I noticed that bugs me is that every class gets one or more bonus skills, except for the Barbarian and Fighter classes. Monks get two of Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Listen, Sneak, Spot or Tumble. Rogues get 4 bonus skills, depending on their scheme. Clerics and Wizards get a bonus knowledge skill.

But the Barbarian and Fighter? Nothing. I think this should change. I'm tired of the idea that Barbarians and Fighters are just dumb brutes. They should gain training in class appropriate things just like everyone else!

I think Barbarians should get two of the following: Climb, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Knowledge (nature), Ride, Spot or Survival.

I think Fighters should get two of: Climb, Drive, Handle Animal, Knowledge (warfare), Ride, Spot, or Swim.

What do you think?

 

[Li Shenron]

I think it's unnecessary. I think we should be happy to get 4 skills and happy for those classes which (unnecessarily, except for the Rogue) get even more skills. We could have got less.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The more classes there are with more skills, the longer the skill list needs to be for any skill checks to be interesting.

The solution isn't to add skills, but to take them away: honestly, I don't mind giving a cleric a knowledge skill (and I like that it doesn't have to be religion), and I want the rogue to keep the extra 4. But if the rest went, would I mind? Nope. Would I mind if every elf wasn't automatically trained in two skills that are going to be rolled before every encounter they ever have? Nope.

I can imagine classes where they are actually relevant (Rangers get Handle Animal?) but classes are too strong as it is.

I'd go further, in fact: I'd get rid of the redundancy-protection: if an elf selects a background that offers training in Spot, then they just have one less skill than all their peers.

 

[Falling Icicle]

The more classes there are with more skills, the longer the skill list needs to be for any skill checks to be interesting.

There are nearly 30 skills. I'm not seeing where you're coming from, honestly.

For a character to only have 4 skills, ever, well, let's just say in all the RPGs I've played, I've never had so few! There was AD&D, but even then you got more NWPs as you leveled up. You weren't stuck with just 4 throughout your entire career. And as ultra specific as the skills are in this edition, that makes it feel especially stingy.

I'd go further, in fact: I'd get rid of the redundancy-protection: if an elf selects a background that offers training in Spot, then they just have one less skill than all their peers.

That's harsh. You do realize that by doing that, people just won't pick backgrounds with redundant skills, even if another background would have been more fun for them to roleplay.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think they need to decide whether they want skills to reinforce archetypes or represent something different. In 3E and 4E it was clear that your class determined your skill base - fighters did athletic stuff and wizards knew things. So far in 5E we have backgrounds that say it doesn't matter what your final career is, you've picked up these skills. Of course, when your first class is significant, or front-loaded, it puts pressure on the class design to expand your skill base. After all, if you're a knight who became a cleric, how could you not have picked up some knowledge of religion? Ah, but isn't that why you have a high Wisdom? I would counter. Right now, it's still unclear to me what skills are trying to do that ability modifiers don't - everything is a bit too vague and the system feels tacked on rather than integrated.

 

[Sekhmet]

Wait, since when are were fighters or barbarians trained in climbing, swimming, driving, survival or, for the most part, riding? Intimidation and Knowledge (Warfare) is a -possibility- at best.

Fighters are trained in combat. Barbarians are not trained in anything, except possibly picking up heavy objects and setting them back down.
You could tie them into a background, but they shouldn't get these skills just for the sake of being these classes.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'd go further, in fact: I'd get rid of the redundancy-protection: if an elf selects a background that offers training in Spot, then they just have one less skill than all their peers.

Err, I wouldn't do that. I believe that will only cause bad players behaviour, such as uselessly complaining and or hunting for backgrounds in supplements to find one that fits perfectly without overlapping (not to mention that in 99% of the games anyway the DM is going to allow people customizing a background's skills list).

There are nearly 30 skills. I'm not seeing where you're coming from, honestly.

For a character to only have 4 skills, ever, well, let's just say in all the RPGs I've played, I've never had so few!

Four PCs in the game will cover about 20 of those skills in the list (I think there are 27 but Knowledge and Profession are multiple skills). Minimum will be 16, then 2 classes give no bonus skills and 6 classes give 1-4 bonus skills, and races give 0-2 bonus skills.

Overall I think 20 is enough already, considering that most of the skills don't follow the trained/untrained rules of 3ed, thus you don't need to "have" the skill to use it.

It is mostly a gamestyle issue whether you want your party to cover ALL skills or only part of them. But whatever your choice, you should remember that the key point is that nobody needs e.g. the Stealth skill to be stealthy or the Survival skill to survive in the wild, so "covering" all skills in the game is really a non-issue. Whether your party has the Survival skill determines how easy/hard it is (i.e. how frequent is success), but behind the curtain the DM can just dial the checks DC to the point that having or not having the Survival bonus can be made irrelevant.

This is just to say that how many skills you have on your character sheet sometimes has more of a psychological effect than a practical one.

Some skills can benefit multiple characters in the same party, which might make someone think that the more the better for everyone. However IMXP there is a hidden danger that makes it usually better not to have 2 PCs invest in the same skills, with few exceptions.

With these numbers in mind, regarding your suggestion on the Barbarian, I actually change my mind and say that after all, why not? One bonus skill (from a short sublist) to the Barbarian will be quite in line with the concept of someone generally more skillful on wilderness stuff, compared e.g. to the Fighter. But if this means that we then have to please Fighters with a bonus skills, then give 2 to Rangers because they should be even more skillful than Barbarians, then Rogues will be complaining that they are not so much better than others etc, then it's not going to be so good.

 

[Kobold Stew]

There are nearly 30 skills. I'm not seeing where you're coming from, honestly.

Admittedly, I am staking an extreme position.

But given the system we've seen, I think it solves more problems than it creates.

For a character to only have 4 skills, ever, well, let's just say in all the RPGs I've played, I've never had so few! There was AD&D, but even then you got more NWPs as you leveled up. You weren't stuck with just 4 throughout your entire career. And as ultra specific as the skills are in this edition, that makes it feel especially stingy.

It's easy to get more skills, you just need to decide to invest in them -- to make the decision to become a skill guy.

Based on what we've seen in DDN, individual skills are less important now -- with the exception of disable device (which leads to problems I've discussed here), everything is done through ability checks. Skills give a benefit, but it's not the case that everything needs to be "covered". Skills let you add your skill die. As long as this way of modelling skills stays, then I think too many skills just undermine the ability to be special, and to usefully contribute to the party.

Right now, there are problems with the list, IMO. One is the large number of suboptimal choices. I've suggested a modest paring of the list here. The discussion there shows how varied the understanding of skills is, even among smart interested readers of the packets.

That's harsh. You do realize that by doing that, people just won't pick backgrounds with redundant skills, even if another background would have been more fun for them to roleplay.

See, I'm not sure that's true. It will be for some, sure. Maybe even for the "advanced" character builders that frequent these boards. But it adds a complexity that doesn't obviously make things better. Overlap is simply too easy to get:

- Some Races give skills (Elves get Spot and Listen)
- Backgrounds give skills
- Some Classes give skills (and this is the defining benefit for rogues) *
- One can choose to take Superior Skill Training *
- Some Feats also give a skill incidentally (e.g. Hide in Shadows)
etc. (conceivably magic items could let you use a skill die to accomplish something, etc.)

So with my approach, if a character already trained in Stealth learns to Hide in Shadows, he doesn't learn a new skill. The alternative is that he or she may learn how to Use Rope, or Heraldry, or how to Drive a cart. It's better just to let it be a free choice of a skill, than go through this charade.

Perception skills are even more skewed: only Thugs and Spys and Elves are naturally perceptive, but now Elf Spys get to choose any skill they want, but others don't. That doesn't seem right.

Or Again: Clerics learn Knowledge Arcane, Religion, or Forbidden Lore. What happens when a background gives one of these (e.g. Sage or Priest)? If I have Kn (religion) already, do I get a free choice in my skill (my cleric swims!) or do I have less choice than I would if I were not a priest? Neither answer satisfies.

Examples like this are just too easy to find, and will only increase as more and more material becomes available.

In a system with ability checks not skill checks, fewer skills across the board, with a modestly pared list, is (I feel) the answer.

Don't like that answer? Fine! I'm just as happy with a "more skills" answer:

All characters get 6 (or however many) skills -- chosen freely from a list. No backgrounds, no racial skills, no class skills. Just a free choice with a fixed number. The only characters who get more are Rogues and those who invest in Superior Skill Training.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Err, I wouldn't do that. I believe that will only cause bad players behaviour, such as uselessly complaining and or hunting for backgrounds in supplements to find one that fits perfectly without overlapping (not to mention that in 99% of the games anyway the DM is going to allow people customizing a background's skills list).

Thanks -- as you'll see, I hadn't read this while I was composing my post just above.

I think there is going to be bad behaviour (as you call it) whatever is decided. I understand the concerns you raise, and they would point towards the "free choice/more skills" option I suggested at the end of my post. As I said, that would be fine by me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I agree that classes shouldn't be getting new or additional "skills", because as has been said... what "skills" are in DDN is different than what they were in 3E and 4E.

Ability checks are what we now use to denote what everybody knows. Every Fighter already has Intimidation. We just call it now a CHA check. Or a STR check (depending on what the PC does to intimidate someone). Those Fighters who have a higher STR or CHA are better at intimidating people than those who don't. Unlike 3E/4E... our ability check modifiers are our baseline for what PCs are capable of. What every character has learned over time being an adventurer.

All Backgrounds do is tell us those couple of subjects that a particular PC has studied above and beyond normal adventuring education. And usually... those do end up defaulting to just a couple subjects where a person is head and shoulders above his fellow men, because most PCs spend their lives doing their jobs rather than learning a huge swathe of different subjects in which they outclass everybody else (and the ones that do are Rogues).

I mean, everybody on these boards here probably have a fairly extensive knowledge or ability in lots of random things. And if we were "in-game" all of this knowledge and physical ability would be shown via our ability check modifiers. But each of us probably has a couple subjects where we are hands-down more knowledgeable or just better than most everybody else. Whether it's having earned a Master's Degree in Greek and Roman History, or playing semi-professional baseball, or 10 years of dance training, or is an expert in cold reading, or can run a marathon, or can rebuild a car engine... THESE are the kinds of thing where in DDN you'd have a "skill" (IE a bonus to your ability check). And each of these things are a very isolated and specific endeavor. None of us are the most knowledgeable person in the room in every part of History. We each have a focus in only one part. And if someone DID know more about all eras of history than everybody else... that should be denoted by just having an higher INT, rather than a generic "History" skill that encompasses ALL of it.

So in my mind... anything you get as "skills" should not be a wide and generic thing (like 'Perception'), but instead a very specific skill you are trained head and shoulders above everyone else in (IE 'Forensics'). Because that is much more in tune with how the game seems to be set up. And so long as every "skill" that is created is that laser focused where it's more of an "Ah ha!" moment when one of the players in the game realizes that he has something that would apply to a check (whereas the current 3E/4E system where it's expected that every single check rolled has an applicable skill associated with it and that at least one, if not two or three, PCs in fact are trained in that skill)... we will finally all get to thinking about the game's skill system in the correct way.

For my money... I think the DDN system should be set up that like 50% of all ability checks a DM will ask for in the game will not in fact have any applicable "skills" associated with it that at least one of the PCs has. Because only then will we finally come to realize that HAVING a "skill" that applies to a situation is in fact a rare and special occurrence... and not something that should be the expectation with each and every roll.