D&D General Do you prefer more or less Skills?

[delericho]

Say more… what number would be better for 5e and why?

My view is that 5e has too many skills to really be lightweight (especially once the tool proficiencies are counted), but it also has both some awkward gaps and some overlaps (notably Athletics/Acrobatics, Perception/Investigation, and Perform/musical instrument proficiencies).

But the weakness that really bugs me are the Charisma-based skills. Because either a character has one (which means all interactions follow a fixed pattern) or they have more than one (in which case there's no meaningful difference); and also because in most parties one PC will specialise in these skills and so gain an effective monopoly on one pillar of the game. I'm inclined to think that it would be better if each (and every) PC was proficient in talking to some groups of people, with Expertise being granted in various social circumstances. That at least spreads the fun out a bit.

As for a better number...

• Six. One very general skill for each ability score.
• Twelve. Each ability score is split into two (as in the really old Player Option days). A PC can be proficient in either side, but never both skills for any given ability.
• Twenty-ish. About the same number as now, but a revised set.
• Fifty-ish. Lots of very little skills, with an attempt to be comprehensive.
• Undefined. PCs just declare any skill they want, with the details left intentionally vague (and no attempt to be comprehensive). They then apply their Prof Bonus if any of their 'skills' apply.
• Undefined II. As above, but each PC only declares one or two - they're also assumed to be proficient in anything related to their race, class, or background.

Edit: I forgot an option:
Zero: The game doesn't actually absolutely require them, of course...

 

[payn]

I voted lots, but what I really want is more ways to engage the skill system. I miss interacting with the skill system every level via points in 3E/PF1. 5E is Ronco "set it and forget it." Once you choose your set up at level 1 you never really look back. In PF2, Paizo decided to take the feat system "cool, but too specific vs. mundane, but total utility" dynamic and apply it to the skill system. Modern games have really been a miss for what I want out of a skill system.

 

[MGibster]

But the weakness that really bugs me are the Charisma-based skills. Because either a character has one (which means all interactions follow a fixed pattern) or they have more than one (in which case there's no meaningful difference); and also because in most parties one PC will specialise in these skills and so gain an effective monopoly on one pillar of the game. I'm inclined to think that it would be better if each (and every) PC was proficient in talking to some groups of people, with Expertise being granted in various social circumstances. That at least spreads the fun out a bit.

I've been beating the "Every PC should be good at talking to people" drum for a while now. They don't all have to be good with the same groups or in the same way, but each player should be confident that they can contribute to interactions with NPCs. Far too often I see players opt out of participating fully by saying, "My character isn't good at talking to people."

 

[Maxperson]

I've been beating the "Every PC should be good at talking to people" drum for a while now. They don't all have to be good with the same groups or in the same way, but each player should be confident that they can contribute to interactions with NPCs. Far too often I see players opt out of participating fully by saying, "My character isn't good at talking to people."

That's why roleplaying matters in my game. Rolls only happen when the outcome is in doubt, and aren't always difficult when they do happen. If the PC says something that makes sense to the NPC, there isn't going to be a roll. As a result all of my players have their PCs talk to NPCs

 

[Staffan]

But the weakness that really bugs me are the Charisma-based skills. Because either a character has one (which means all interactions follow a fixed pattern) or they have more than one (in which case there's no meaningful difference); and also because in most parties one PC will specialise in these skills and so gain an effective monopoly on one pillar of the game.

One of many things I like about FFG's Star Wars is that you have multiple social skills spread out over three different stats. Presence is the primary social stat with Charm, Leadership, and Negotiation, but you also have the Cunning-based Deception and the Willpower-based Coercion.

Another cool idea is from Trinity Continuum, where you can use a social stat (of which there are three, but one is mostly passive) combined with a skill to do social stuff in the appropriate context. The 5e equivalent would be Charisma (Arcana) checks to deal with mages, Charisma (Nature) checks to deal with farmers, and so on. This works better in Trinity than in D&D because D&D skills are more binary, whereas they're rated on a 0-5 scale (similar to stats) in Trinity.

 

[Staffan]

Say more… what number would be better for 5e and why?

For D&D in particular, I think the skill proficiencies that exist are mostly "right-sized", but they do leave some annoying holes. The most obvious one is knowledge of the human (or maybe sapient) world – history fills some of it, but I'm thinking things like heraldry, geography, who rules where, what are proper ways to act in a particular town/culture, and so on. I'd also include thieves' tools in Sleight of Hand and possibly rename it Thievery. I could also see combining Nature and Survival, and maybe bake Animal Handling into one or both of those – any time you have a player asking "What's the difference between skill X and skill Y?" you should consider whether those might not be better off as a single skill.

 

[SkidAce]

Reading people seems quite logical and calculated to me.

It can be, I used to interview suspects and it was an analysis based thing.

But some people can do it intuitively (maybe the calculating is going on in the subconscious, who knows?)

 

[Plaguescarred]

I prefer fewer skills. While not perfect i'm more than ok with 5E skill system.

 

[SkidAce]

... Doing virtually the impossible on a DC 35 check says 17 points comes from skill and training, and 18 points just from luck. Doesn't that seem odd? That even the very pinnacle of human endeavor in Dungeons & Dragons can see any accomplishment be at best only 50% of it coming from who you are and what you've done? When you look at it from the top-down meta view of the game system... that ain't great.

Statistically I hear you, but the character isnt actually rolling a die. So to them its an overall average tendency to be better than someone else with a lower score.

 

[MGibster]

That's why roleplaying matters in my game. Rolls only happen when the outcome is in doubt, and aren't always difficult when they do happen. If the PC says something that makes sense to the NPC, there isn't going to be a roll. As a result all of my players have their PCs talk to NPCs

This is probably a subject onto itself, but I'm trying to gently nudge my players in that direction. On the flip side I don't want to treat social skills as if they're mind control. So when to roll versus when to just role play isn't always an easy decision to make.