D&D 5E 5e Skills, what's the point?

[mjb235]

I'm sorry if this has been brought up a million times but I've searched for something similar and my search-fu has been weak.

I'm wondering what the point of having skills is in 5e at all. Since all skills are just attribute tests, and having proficiency in a skill only increases the skill by your proficiency modifier. This is compounded by the concept of tool proficiency which can essentially mean the same thing.

What I'm wondering is why did they need to print skills in the first place? Beyond maybe for class or background proficiency choices. Essentially they could have thrown all of that away and when you choose a proficiency you would just say something like "Roque the Rogue has proficiency in thieving and being acrobatic because he likes to jump around." That's 2 proficiencies and it covers thieves tools. If a DM find it too broad they can just ask the player to refine. "What does thieving exactly mean?" "Oh, he's good at breaking into houses and unlocking doors" "Ok, put burglary instead".

So then a DM just has to say "Hm, make a dexterity check" and the player can lobby "Well, I have proficiency in burglary does this apply?".

I can see it being useful to have examples there. Understanding the difference between perception and investigation is the difference between asking for a wisdom check or an intelligence check. But beyond that I don't see why having a defined "Perception" skill is necessary. Especially when you consider something like Athletics where the players guide specifically calls out athletics as possibly using strength or dexterity based on the circumstances.

tl:dr, What's the point of having 'defined' skills, versus just using attribute checks and giving players proficiency's that they can choose with the GM?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Dausuul]

The point is to reduce the amount of debate over when you can apply your proficiency bonus and when you can't. That's the reason we have any rules at all, instead of just a free-form game where the DM makes everything up on the fly. A defined set of rules gives the players and DM a foundation which doesn't have to be negotiated case by case.

The drawback is that the more extensive the ruleset is, the more work it is to learn it, remember it, and apply it in play. The ideal balance point between rules and free-form will vary from one table to another.

If you want to junk the skill rules, by all means junk 'em. I think there might even be some suggestions in the DMG on how to go about it. However, they are useful for those who prefer a balance tilted more toward the "rules" side.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Defined skills and tools give the player and DM a singular shared expectation of what a character is or isn't good at, where leaving it up to the DM to figure out what is or isn't appropriate as a proficiency or for that proficiency to cover opens up far more opportunity for the player to be displeased because they thought one thing and their DM thinks another.

Plus, if character creation involves even more mandatory discussion points it makes it take longer, and that misses the intent of 5th edition to have a very expedient means of a group getting together and saying "Let's play some D&D" and being able to actually be playing, rather than still building characters, in something like 20 minutes.

 

[fixitgeek]

The point is that now the player and GM have something more to disagree on. A player in my game wants to do something mundane as a bard, they want to make a grand performance in the local tavern for their free stay. A bard is a natural performer and and actor so they pull it off with their roll. Now he decides he wants to lie to someone about who he is, but his proficiency is in acting and performance which he says should work, but I say would be applicable if he were doing such against a local tavern go-er and not the thieves guild member he is speaking with. This isn't the best example but it forms the basis for what my point is, Skills have existed for a few editions and make things move along more smooth in certain aspects, take those away and we go back to arguing about why the guy doesn't believe the story I am telling him.

 

[mjb235]

I understand.

Essentially what I was missing is that this system is designed for expedience of play and ease. I still get into the mindset of assuming everyone enjoys the same style of game I do. Which I understand and accept is a terrible mindset to have. Assuming I continue using this system I personally would like to remove the "Defined" skills for my group. I think I can trust my players and I to come up with agreeable rules and and understanding of what is an acceptable proficiency or not. But I can see how the particular mindset of the target audience for this game would be delighted to have such a simple set up.

Thank you, for the record I do love this system. It just bugged me wondering why defining the skills was initially necessary when all they were were attribute rolls with or without a modifier. Especially considering I came from Pathfinder where you had to micromanage every single skill point and could have numbers wildly varying all over the place.

 

[Blue]

Beyond maybe for class or background proficiency choices. Essentially they could have thrown all of that away and when you choose a proficiency you would just say something like "Roque the Rogue has proficiency in thieving and being acrobatic because he likes to jump around." That's 2 proficiencies and it covers thieves tools. If a DM find it too broad they can just ask the player to refine. "What does thieving exactly mean?" "Oh, he's good at breaking into houses and unlocking doors" "Ok, put burglary instead".

So then a DM just has to say "Hm, make a dexterity check" and the player can lobby "Well, I have proficiency in burglary does this apply?".

You have exactly described 13th Age skill system. It's a d20 fantasy game by some of the lead designers of 3ed (Jonathan Tweet) and 4e (Rob Heinsoo), came out before 5e but is very similar in an old-school lighter approach. You have backgrounds that both give general descriptions of what you do but also how you connect into the setting. One of your backgrounds might be: "Quartermaster of the Pirate Schooner Roll-yer-bones". Want to make deals with shady characters for black market magic items? Add it to your Chr mod. Want to keep you balance shipboard while fighting in stormy weather? It plus your Dex. Want to rub elbows with the rich and powerful at a ball? Sorry, doesn't apply.

I'm active in both 13th Age and 5e. They cover some similar ground and there are things I steal back and forth between the systems.

Edit: Added examples to show you can add your background to different ability scores.

 

[mjb235]

Actually I probably wouldn't have noticed this if I wasn't so enamored with many of the changes 13th age did. But I think some of the answers I got in this thread gave me a better idea of what direction 5e was going for. So I understand it better. But I loved the background system in 13th age and if I didn't have such a hard time figuring out how one "Gets more backgrounds" at higher level (Read: Any class that would get more skill proficiencies) I'd probably slap it into 5e and call it a day.

 

[Shendorion]

tl:dr, What's the point of having 'defined' skills, versus just using attribute checks and giving players proficiency's that they can choose with the GM?

What's the difference between having 'defined' skills, versus just using attribute checks and giving characters proficiencies that they can choose with the GM?

Is it just a degree of specificity? It sounds like you're proposing that the proficiency rules be scrapped, and the players and GM negotiate the creation of an almost identical system of proficiency rules, perhaps with a slightly different list of individual proficiencies.

 

[Greg Benage]

What I'm wondering is why did they need to print skills in the first place?

You can run the game without skills (there's even an optional rule in the DMG for it). I still use the listed skills to define specializations for Expertise. Otherwise, you can gain proficiency bonus on a task based on background, class or your description of what your character is doing.

Pros:

* Simplifies character creation
* Incentivizes player creativity and descriptive game-play
* Reinforces a class-based system (as opposed to a hybrid class/skill-based system)

Cons:
* Results in some negotiation*
* Creates some uncertainty in edge cases about what a character can do well

* But this usually ties into the "player creativity and descriptive game-play" idea. If a player says, "I grew up on the streets and had to learn how to lie just to survive," I could look at that as "working the DM" in order to get a bonus on a Cha check. Or I could look at it as the player engaging with the game and developing their character in play. I choose the latter.