D&D 5E Required Class Skills

[Xeviat]

BTW, you can give your wizard expertise in Arcana, but you really have to go out of your way to do it (via being a human and taking the Prodigy feat or via multiclassing, both of which technically fall under the optional rules umbrella). And yes, this also annoys me to no end.

And one of those options would require multiclassing into Bard or Rogue which brings other baggage.

If all rangers learn how to vanish and hide in plain sight, it seems like all rangers should be good at stealth.

 

[bedir than]

I am now leaning towards each class gaining a free skill at Level 1 and expertise in that skill at Level 5

 

[Blue]

Does anyone else find it odd that certain classes don't require certain skills to be known? 4E had several classes where, instead of learning 3 skills from a list, for instance, they learned 2 skills and a fixed skill.

This came up because I was looking at the Ranger, and I found it odd that they get 2 stealth related class abilities but you could build a ranger without having proficiency in Stealth.

Taken a little further, Bards without Perform, Clerics without Religion, Druid's without Nature, and Wizards without Arcana feels a little weird too, but at least these classes don't have mechanics that require making checks with those skills.

What are your thoughts?

My first thought it that you can have those skills already from a background. The rule in the PHB about duplicate skills between background and class is that you can pick any skill. So a required skill in a class actually means that you can pick ANY skill instead of just skills on the class list. Meaning that required skills can actually dilute having appropriate skills by allowing off-list choice.

My second thought is that many classes get reskinned for specific games or character plans, and having required skills hurts that creativity.

Finally, a bard / paladin having perform as a required skill but not religion while a paladin / bard having religion as a required skill but not perform seems to just be a failing game solution, but requiring it to multiclass is too restrictive considering how few skills are given out, and giving it out for free strengthens multiclass with free skills and throws off the balance with straight classed characters.

 

[Blue]

(Admittedly, I am a heretic on this, as I firmly believe one shouldn't optimize skills by going for the highest numbers. I think Proficiency in Athletics is arguably more important for a character with strength 10 or 12 than one with strength 16.)

If you're a heretic you're not alone.

Well, to a point. There are some skills that aren't often useful duplicated. If one player has a great survival, it's not often the second-best-by-far survival comes into play.

But for other skills, I'm with you. Having a decent chance to climb, to escape from a grapple, or not get surprised is actually pretty dang useful. To talk when you party face isn't around.

 

[Blue]

While it's not a balance issue if a wizard isn't proficient in Arcana, it is an existential issue. ...

All wizards should be proficient in Arcana, IMHO.

So, you deny the possibility of a character who is naturally good at Arcana (high Intelligence) but not trained in it (unproficient)? Not a sorcerer, who casts from natural talent, but a wizard who is bright but not classically trained and is having to figure out the formal parts of it as they go along.

I'm sorry to tell you that there are plenty of stories with main characters who fit this archetype. I am not sorry to tell you that this narrow and restrictive viewpoint of what makes a valid concept for my character is not supported by the rules.

 

[Blue]

Isn't there already a rule about choosing a different skill if you get the same skill from two sources?

There is, and hard-coding skills actually make characters less on target. Having mandatory skills to flavor the character "appropriately" does the exact opposite in actual play.

Right now you get your background skills and choice of other appropriate skills. However, if you have overlap, you can then pick any skill.

Let me repeat that: a required skill, going with class-thematic background that already grants it, means that instead of picking from the class list of appropriate skills, the player can instead pick from any skill, which includes a lot that are less appropriate.

So this leads to the opposite of what the goal was.

 

[Blue]

On additional thought, I think you absolutely missing the role of backgrounds in D&D 5e. Backgrounds are what you spent your time doing, and have mandetory skills. If you were an acolyte, you learned Religion. Some have been called to their gods without having gone through a formal process with a church. They may be blessedly devout without being a student of comparative religion.

A sage might know of Arcana and History, but a windmaster (sailor wizard) may have spent her days on the open seas learning from the winds and not be trained in either.

This rogue might be a sneaky criminal, or that one a swashbuckling noble who would never use hide.

We already have baked into the system choice of what you have done. The flexibility of combining backgrounds and classes together to make up a lot more archetypes then just classes is a big win in this system. Forcing all characters to be alike regardless of the player choices is against all of that -- and can be thematically not-appropriate depending on the concept.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

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.

IMO, it's simply about flexibility of concept. If every wizard has to pick Arcana as a skill, then I need special permission to play a wizard who isn't proficient. As it stands, I don't. Not taking Arcana may be shooting myself in the foot, as there are likely to be arcane mysteries in game that might benefit my character if solved, but I can do it if it doesn't fit my concept. I don't find that to bad thing.

 

[BlivetWidget]

So, you deny the possibility of a character who is naturally good at Arcana (high Intelligence) but not trained in it (unproficient)? Not a sorcerer, who casts from natural talent, but a wizard who is bright but not classically trained and is having to figure out the formal parts of it as they go along.

I'm sorry to tell you that there are plenty of stories with main characters who fit this archetype. I am not sorry to tell you that this narrow and restrictive viewpoint of what makes a valid concept for my character is not supported by the rules.

I'm sorry to tell you your interpretation of proficiency is flawed . You don't have to be classically trained to be proficient, you just have to be good at something. Check your dictionary.

 

[77IM]

I think that the story/"meaning" of both classes and skills would be strengthened if each class had 1-2 automatic skills. Ranger is a great example; I can't imagine a ranger without Survival, and merely having Survival makes a character feel more ranger-y, so let's just formalize that relationship and give all rangers Survival for free. Bards should all get Performance, druids should all get Nature, etc.

As a bonus, the automatic skill could also be a multiclassing prerequisite, which would limit dipping into a class just for the mechanical benefits. E.g., you can't just splash on a level of barbarian unless you're proficient in Intimidation; you can't just grab some levels of wizard unless you already know Arcana; etc.

I get that it can be fun to "play against type" but at some point it just doesn't make sense for the class description to say "you are in tune with nature" but then not give you the Nature skill. Note, also, that many races and subclasses already get specific free skills. You can't say "oh I'm a friendly half-orc so I don't know Intimidation," although you could certainly choose not to use that skill. Scout rogues get some powerful free expertise, making them better than the ranger at certain ranger-y things. It's totally weird to me.