D&D 5E Some thoughts on skills.

[Vaalingrade]

What do you have against DM empowerment??

What do ya got?

 

[Clint_L]

I don't see this as a problem. A, B or C? Any of them applies.

When I DM, I actually added a few skills that overlap. Some different ability scores. Like Intimidation (Str) and Browbeat (Str) or Surgery (Wis) and Medicine (Wis). Worked wonders. Confusion plummet.


You would then have to describe what every Backgrounds knows. Starting the whole process and problem all over again.

No I wouldn't. I would just decide in the moment. Does it make sense for that character to have a chance at that thing? Worked as a scribe? Sure, roll to see if you know that bit of history or whatever.

Why do we need all these things laid out for us? It's a cooperative game; just go with what makes sense for the character.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Nothing.I mostly DM.

My point is that without a framework giving by the game or the time, the imagination or possible imagination of an action.

A person who does X in real life might have a different idea of how Easy or Hard doing an application of X might be than a person who has never done X and only seen it. And the first person might have a different perception of the same thing in comparison with the rules.

And this situation is often glossed over in the TTRPG community.

Don't I know it...

 

[billd91]

Powerlifer vs Decathlete vs Gymast vs Triathelete

Why on earth would D&D need to differentiate that?

 

[Minigiant]

Why on earth would D&D need to differentiate that?

Same reason there are Arcane Religion Nature and History skills.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Same reason there are Arcane Religion Nature and History skills.

That doesn't match up.

Athletics and Acrobatics covers mostly what you need. These primary skills can allow a table to homebrew specialities i.e. Swimming, Jumping, Running, Climbing, Tight Rope Walking, Gymnastics, Throwing...etc
Maybe you want to give a PC Expertise/Advantage for a Speciality.

Lifting, on the other hand, should not be a skill, but instead treated as a straight Strength check for most people. If you believe someone would be proficient in it due to their extra mural pass-time or their profession then just give them the proficiency bonus - there is no need, IMO, to create a further skill for it.

If a table is inclined to increase detail one could create specialities within Arcane, Religion, Nature and History skills.

 

[Minigiant]

That doesn't match up.

Athletics and Acrobatics covers mostly what you need. These primary skills can allow a table to homebrew specialities i.e. Swimming, Jumping, Running, Climbing, Tight Rope Walking, Gymnastics, Throwing...etc
Maybe you want to give a PC Expertise/Advantage for a Speciality.

Lifting, on the other hand, should not be a skill, but instead treated as a straight Strength check for most people. If you believe someone would be proficient in it due to their extra mural pass-time or their profession then just give them the proficiency bonus - there is no need, IMO, to create a further skill for it.

If a table is inclined to increase detail one could create specialities within Arcane, Religion, Nature and History skills.

By that logic there should only be a single Knowledge skill.

Which goes to my point. There are are different types of physicality just like there are different types of knowledge. And how they are categorized and their difficultly are based on the person. So without a clear guideline of some types and difficulties of skills they are from the game, you are leaning heavily on interpretation of the one you deem as the arbiter, the DM, who have various ranges of possible imagination.

It's not good or bad. It's a design choice. And that choice is why this thread exists and is over 5 pages.

 

[amethal]

Lifting, on the other hand, should not be a skill, but instead treated as a straight Strength check for most people. If you believe someone would be proficient in it due to their extra mural pass-time or their profession then just give them the proficiency bonus - there is no need, IMO, to create a further skill for it.

That's a good point. Does it say anything like this in the DMG? Because it should.

You could, in theory, treat everything like this and not bother with "skills" at all. Write down a few broad "interests" and apply proficiency when your DM thinks it is appropriate.

Of course, you'll get the situation where one player write downs "art appreciation" while somebody else writes down "adventuring".

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Lifting, on the other hand, should not be a skill, but instead treated as a straight Strength check for most people. If you believe someone would be proficient in it due to their extra mural pass-time or their profession then just give them the proficiency bonus - there is no need, IMO, to create a further skill for it.

That's a good point. Does it say anything like this in the DMG? Because it should.

It's in the PHB (p 176):
Push, Drag, or Lift.
You can push, drag, or lift a weight in pounds up to twice your carrying capacity (or 30 times your Strength score).

A PC needs/wants to lift more than that? The DM could call for a Strength ability check, perhaps, if appropriate, as @AnotherGuy points out.

 

[ph0rk]

By that logic there should only be a single Knowledge skill.

Given how the rest of skills work, there probably only should be only one; or at most two. 5 skills with niche uses makes for pretty weak knowledge skills (and there is the common problem of vague DCs that don't specify for the DM what sorts of things a knowledge check may reveal). Better than 3e, but not great. Most especially since if the group needs information for plot reasons they'll get it that information one way or the other. The knowledge skills are rarely as useful as the more active skills - in fact, I'd say everyone should get a knowledege skills for free from their backgrounds, and knoweldge skills should be considered as weaker than active skills - like tool proficiencies are.

Also, like tool proficiencies and languages, a character could practice to learn more of them in downtime.