D&D 5E Some thoughts on skills.

[Minigiant]

Isn't that what DM judgement is for??

Sure.

But couldn't the DM's judgement be informed? And couldn't the way the DM judges be knowledgeable to the players?

Whether a character is an expert or an amateur is, in part, determined by ability score and proficiency (but it doesn't actually matter except for bragging rights). It shouldn't affect DC at all - trying to break down the door with brute strength has the same DC whether the barbarian or the rogue does it. It's just that the barbarian possibly has a better chance of succeeding on the roll, if there is one, if they are stronger than the rogue. All that affects DC is whether the DM thinks whatever you are doing is easy, moderate, or hard. The whole section on Using Ability Scores, which includes Difficulty Class, covers this adequately in my view.

My point is one DM could rule climbing a brick wall as DC 10. Another as DC 15. And a Third DM say it's DC 20. And one book could suggest DC 12. Another book suggest DC 17.

None of them are wrong.

However the choice can affect the genre and style of the game.

That choice, whether to pick 10 or 20, and what the choices mean are often not discussed. Instead we just let the trained thief fall on his face and laugh.

 

[Minigiant]

Taking a page out of other RPGs:

Knowledges -- things you know. For 5E, Intelligence skills definitely, most tools (knowledge separate from application?).
Skills -- things you do. For 5E, Strength and Dexterity skills, maybe some Charisma, perhaps some tools.
Talents -- things about you. For 5E, most Wisdom and Charisma skills, possibly some tools such as instruments.

Each race/class/background could grant so many of each, or you could do a "point-system" where maybe knowledges are 1 point, skills 2 points, and talents 3 points or something?

TCOE does this somewhat with Skills being the top tier, then tools then languages.

Then based on your groups use of the feats you could determine how many tool proficiencies are worth a skill proficiency.

Maybe there the general lore skills could be reduced and some turned into lesser proficiency. That way you can combine Supernatural Lore Proficiency and Religion Proficiency to get Proficiency Bonus Plus Advantage.

Now you cleric beats most general checks to know religious facts.

 

[iserith]

My point is one DM could rule climbing a brick wall as DC 10. Another as DC 15. And a Third DM say it's DC 20. And one book could suggest DC 12. Another book suggest DC 17.

None of them are wrong.

However the choice can affect the genre and style of the game.

That choice, whether to pick 10 or 20, and what the choices mean are often not discussed. Instead we just let the trained thief fall on his face and laugh.

It seems to me that expecting the DM to get it exactly "right" is folly, even with an exhaustive list of tasks and DCs. See D&D 3.Xe for an example. That's up to the DM. If a player thinks the DM is using DCs that are too high or inconsistent, they can talk with them about it.

 

[Reynard]

The more I think about this, the more I think that there are two ways to do it correctly.

1) Assume that characters have "proficiency" in skills related to their heritage upbringing, their background, and their class, and give them that bonus on a case by case basis.

2) use detailed skill lists with granular player directed skill point allocation.

The 5E model, like so much of the game, sits in an unsatisfying middle ground.

 

[tetrasodium]

It seems to me that expecting the DM to get it exactly "right" is folly, even with an exhaustive list of tasks and DCs. See D&D 3.Xe for an example. That's up to the DM. If a player thinks the DM is using DCs that are too high or inconsistent, they can talk with them about it.

The GM & player being able to point to a set of mechanics and outline the reasons why they were deployed in a particular way(ie N+2 b/c X +2 b/c Y +2 b/c Z etc) allows for amicable reasoned discussion involving things like reasons why it should be lower (ie -2b/c X¹ -2 b/x Y¹ etc) that avoids a situation where someone gives a reason the other side feels like is just a variation of calvinball because it amused me or worse an incendiary meme.

 

[pemerton]

I posit the GM's role is to create a fictional world, and then to serve as a window into that world. Players settle on some goals inside that fictional world, and then do their best to achieve them.

I think this works best if the players are given some out-of-character info by the GM, so they can make non-blind choices in PC building.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Not at all. Athletics and Acrobatics are quite clearly different things. But lifting is a form of athletic action. You use the same muscle groups for lifting (and all the things you described) as you would for something like swimming, climbing, digging, or all sorts of other things. Just about the only thing this "lifting" skill wouldn't cover would be stuff involving running or walking!

Conversely, knowing the creatures of nature tells you diddly-squat about magic. Those are, in fact, actually distinct things. Much like Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate, or Insight and Perception.

Further, splitting apart things to an excessive degree of fineness was pretty clearly an error of the 3e skill list. Having separate Listen and Spot skills (instead of just using contextual modifiers...which it already had anyway), or separate Hide and Move Silently skills, or separate Climb/Jump/Ride/Swim, or heck just the Use Rope skill in and of itself--all of this specificity added little to nothing and just compounded the already serious "build your whole character 1-20 before you roll your first check" problems of 3rd edition.

Like, I get it. I get that there's value in specificity--if my stupidly over-long posts haven't shown how much that is my jam, I don't know what will. But I just genuinely don't believe that forking these things out into a separate "Lifting" skill meant to be distinct from "Athletics" makes sense.

Edit: Perhaps a different way of looking at it. The things you've listed, if teased out to their full extent, seem to leave the Athletics skill impoverished to the point that I don't understand why it's still a skill. Which is the whole problem here. Nature and Arcana and such, their existence doesn't hollow out the existence of other knowledge skills. Religious practices are a real serious thing to know about when the gods demonstrably exist. Magical effects are friggin' everywhere, it's worthwhile to have a skill about that.

Conversely, a skill I think should exist but doesn't in the 4e system I've mentioned I enjoy? Engineering. The game kind of handwaves that as being part of Dungeoneering, but I always thought that was dumb. Engineering covers both construction (the only part that overlaps with Dungeoneering) and devices, machinery, design, physical manipulation of the environment via tools (block and tackle, pulleys, etc.) That's an actual separate discipline from all the extant knowledge skills and one that can, and should, be relevant some of the time.

Military stuff, on the other hand? That's History, as is anything--ANYTHING--regarding past events, including cultural traditions and a bunch of other stuff (though complete details on, say, ancient religious practices might require Religion.) Anything--ANYTHING--that uses magic should have at least some intersection with Arcana (but "full details" might require Religion for divine magic or Nature for primal.) Anything--ANYTHING--that involves physical exertion is either Athletics if you use bodily strength and Acrobatics if you use quickness and agility.

That's what I mean when I say these skills are ultra-broad. They're huge chunks of stuff, so investing into them is almost always worthwhile and useful.

 

[iserith]

The GM & player being able to point to a set of mechanics and outline the reasons why they were deployed in a particular way(ie N+2 b/c X +2 b/c Y +2 b/c Z etc) allows for amicable reasoned discussion involving things like reasons why it should be lower (ie -2b/c X¹ -2 b/x Y¹ etc) that avoids a situation where someone gives a reason the other side feels like is just a variation of calvinball because it amused me or worse an incendiary meme.

It looks like a solution in search of a problem to me, at least in this edition of the game. The DM decides. If you don't like the DM's rulings, talk to them. If they don't work with you on it, adapt or find another game. No amount of set DCs for specific tasks you can point to in a book is going to stop a DM acting in bad faith. It just means you can be comforted knowing you were right, except that ultimately you're not, because the rules serve the DM, not the other way around.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It looks like a solution in search of a problem to me, at least in this edition of the game. The DM decides. If you don't like the DM's rulings, talk to them. If they don't work with you on it, adapt or find another game. No amount of set DCs for specific tasks you can point to in a book is going to stop a DM acting in bad faith. It just means you can be comforted knowing you were right, except that ultimately you're not, because the rules serve the DM, not the other way around.

So, "never ever voice criticism of the way things are done, because that's how they're done and you may as well suck it up or give up participating."

Not exactly a constructive message, but not exactly surprising given the culture of play inculcated by 5e.

 

[iserith]

So, "never ever voice criticism of the way things are done, because that's how they're done and you may as well suck it up or give up participating."

Not exactly a constructive message, but not exactly surprising given the culture of play inculcated by 5e.

I don't recommend putting words in other people's mouths. Criticize all you want. Just expect some people will find your position baseless and worthy of criticism itself.