D&D 5E 5e Skills whats your opinion

[Lehrbuch]

Tool proficiency is the kind of awkward side system of skills. In general, most of them seem to be fluff/ribbons, but then you have Thieve's Tools, which reigns supreme among them in most campaigns in terms of usefulness.

Yes, but in-play if a PC has a tool proficiency, then the player generally finds all sorts of pretexts to use it. At face value, Proficiency in Weaver's Tools doesn't sound especially useful. But if a PC has it, then most players will try to find creative ways to use it, which usually leads to good opportunities to earn Inspiration and just generally progress in the adventure.

Also, Disguise Kit, Forgery Kit, Herbalism Kit, Navigator's Tools, Poisoner's Kit, and Vehicle Proficiency are all tools that are pretty generically useful, like Thieves' Tools without the player needing to think very hard.

Like how do you know how to make all these things with an herbalism kit, but have no knowledge of herbs, which is covered under Nature?

If you actually read the rules you will find that "Proficiency with this [Herbalism] kit lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to identify or apply herbs." (Basic PHB, 51).

You could probably also use Intelligence (Nature) to identify and find herbs, but probably not to apply them.

Also, you seem to be forgetting any character can use every skill, tool, etc. It is just that characters are only proficient in a limited number. Nonetheless a PC with a good relevant Ability Score will still be quite good at a skill they are not proficient in.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If you actually read the rules you will find that "Proficiency with this [Herbalism] kit lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to identify or apply herbs." (Basic PHB, 51).

That's totally obvious, right? If I know how to use a jeweler's kit, then I know how to construct jewelry without using a jeweler's kit. If I know how to use a frying pan, then I know how to cook without using a frying pan.

This skill system gives me a headache.

 

[iserith]

I don't like skills.

They foster min-maxxing. If I have a character who has a high dex but a low int, I will probably take proficiency in a bunch of dex skills but not int skills, which just pushes me further into extremes. This has a negative effect on the game where a DM might set a high DC so the warlock with +9 persuasion gets a reasonable challenge, but now all the other characters feel like talking is pointless.

Short of having physical difficulties, there is no challenge in rolling dice. The challenge is in making decisions that lead to automatic success or at least to (statistically favorable) uncertainty. A DM doing what you suggest is not adjudicating properly in my view. The DC shouldn't go up simply because the warlock has a good bonus. The DC is based on how difficult the DM thinks it will be to achieve a goal given the player's stated approach.

I also don't really see what it adds. If I want to play a knowledgeable character, I can just give him a high int. Do I really need to be proficient in Arcana, History, or Nature to feel like my character is learned?

No, you do not. It just means that when there is an uncertain outcome to drawing upon one's knowledge, a character who is trained in those skills has a better chance of success given the same goal and approach than one who is not. Having the skills is also something of a fictional descriptor - "My guy/gal is good at these things because he/she was a sage before becoming an adventurer."

 

[Lanliss]

Athletics broad capabilities skew the entire skill system. It's by far more useful than every other skill in 5E, simply in terms of the many, many different activities it permits characters to engage in (swimming, running, jumping, wrestling, climbing, and marathoning. If DnD had bikes and basketball, Athletics would probably handle those as well).

It's like that for a good reason: because breaking it up into smaller skills annoys players who don't want to take a million different skills. However, not breaking it up also annoys players who dislike unbalanced skill systems, in which one skill is more likely to be useful than every other skill in the entirety of the game. Hey, everybody, take Athletics so you can outrun the things that want kill you! Screw Medicine, we a have Cleric! To hell with Knowledge skills, we have Diviners! Don't take Animal Handling, that's what summoning spells are for! Intimidation? Just stab people. If they aren't scared after that, stab em again! etc.

Every other skill is situational, or replaceable. But even in a game with Jump and Expeditious Retreat, Athletics is powerful enough to be useful, which puts it miles ahead of everything else. It is 100% the no brainer skill.

To be fair, in real life Athletics can be interpreted as simple "capability". A football player might not know the rules for soccer, but that doesn't mean he can't kick the ball just as hard as a soccer player. A mountain climber has muscles, and swimming requires muscles, so there is no reason it shouldn't come naturally. Sure, some people have to practice and learn to swim, but sometimes it comes down to "sink or swim" and their body picks swim. If it were a sickly child, with barely the strength to walk, this is less likely.

 

[nomotog]

I tend not to think of skills as skills, but as different proficiency bonuses. One thing I don't like is that they seem to treat the skill list as 'the' list. I would have liked it if there was no skill list just different skills that come from different places.

 

[Gansk]

To be fair, in real life Athletics can be interpreted as simple "capability". A football player might not know the rules for soccer, but that doesn't mean he can't kick the ball just as hard as a soccer player. A mountain climber has muscles, and swimming requires muscles, so there is no reason it shouldn't come naturally. Sure, some people have to practice and learn to swim, but sometimes it comes down to "sink or swim" and their body picks swim. If it were a sickly child, with barely the strength to walk, this is less likely.

IMO your description justifies the Strength ability check, not the proficiency bonus gained from the Athletics skill.

Athletics should be related to events in the Olympic decathlon, but not wrestling and swimming - those are completely different techniques and don't belong in the same category.

 

[Lehrbuch]

That's totally obvious, right?

Yes, seems obvious that it is a good idea to read the rules before complaining about them.

It's not for nothing that there is a separate description of what some of the tool proficiencies allow.

 

[Imaro]

nevermind... misunderstood the post.

 

[Gansk]

My game has a longer list of skills and skill points.
I also have negative HP and much slower natural healing. I have expanded the proficiency bonus so it tops out at 8 and retooled everything for a slightly higher top end on the bounding and used this design space doe adding in weapon focus and other customizations. Now there is more differentiation between characters both numerically and in areas of specialization.
My game looks a lot more like 3E than it does RAW 5E, though it still is very clearly built on the 5E foundation.

I would love to see your house rules if you posted them in the house rules forum!

 

[Mercule]

The double-edged sword of D&D is that it's a large-grained system. This is absolutely inherent in a class and level based game.

This is good because it's what allows you to create a 12th level Fighter in 15 minutes, teach the game to a newb, and play with house rules in some isolation (new feats, new classes, etc.). This is bad because it makes it hard to fine tune many character concepts without bending rules or even requiring the GM to create new house rules. Personally, after 30+ years of gaming, including some ridiculously detailed systems (Phoenix Command), I think the positives outweigh the negatives for that sort of large-grain system. There are a lot of places where it sucks from an academic/theoretic perspective. The real-world impact is slanted the other way, though.

As far as the specific case of the 5E skills goes, I find it to be the best system I've seen in D&D, to date. The vagueness of 1E "skills" caused problems for my group. The 2E NWP sucked more than any other iteration. 3E/3.5 skills were a nod in the right direction, but were (generally) only of value if you maxed out your favored skills, which is pretty binary. I don't recalled 4E skills, honestly. The 5E skills are a lot like 3E skills, in practice (binary), but address some math problems.

I'd still like to see a third tier (average, good, great or untrained, secondary, primary), but Expertise might be the practical answer (see theory vs. reality, above). Also, the tools thing sucks, but that's been beaten up well enough by others.

At a warm-fuzzy level, I absolutely despise that skills are formally considered a special case of ability checks. It might just be a reminder of 2E NWP, but I don't like it. Skills are their own thing, and are modified by ability scores. In practice, it all works the same. It's just an itch I have with the 5E system.