D&D 5E 5e Skills, what's the point?

[Li Shenron]

What's the point of having 'defined' skills, versus just using attribute checks and giving players proficiency's that they can choose with the GM?

The point of skills is just character differentiation.

But it isn't the only way, in fact the books suggest more than one alternative, and you can always vary the system to your own tastes, if you find the standard skills boring:

- you can have 'background proficiencies' e.g. sailor -> gain proficiency bonus in every task that has enough to do with what a sailor does (controlling ships and boats, using ropes, orienteering in wide open space, balancing on something moving, climbing poles and ropes, fishing, swimming, weather prediction...)
- you can have 'ability proficiencies' e.g. all Strength checks
- you can allow some checks only to proficient characters e.g. no Knowledge checks unless you are proficient, or only checks below a certain DC
- you can freely have checks using different combinations of ability and skill e.g. Constitution(Athletics) if the task requires endurance or Intelligence(Persuasion) if your target is particularly impressed by smart arguments
- you can create your own extended list of skills with new ideas, or split existing skills further (maybe consider handing out an extra proficiency or two per character in this case)
- you can throw away skill checks and use only passive skills

The skill system is just the default. If you change it, you have to figure out if your variant doesn't harm some characters more than others (Rogues first, Bards and Rangers second, thrive on more and better proficiencies), but besides that, you're not going to break the game if you do.

 

[TrippyHippy]

It is interesting how different generations of game (and gamer) have shifted on skills over the years. In the 80s and 90s there was a general drive towards 'modernising' the game to include a RuneQuest style set of skills (which pretty much every other RPG had at the time). By the time they had a fully integrated set of skills in 3rd Edition, there was a palpable sense of relief.

Then the whole Old School Revival movement came with games like Castle & Crusades and everybody wanted to ditch them again!

I agree that there isn't really that much need for separate skills. The Proficiency Bonus could be broadly expressed over Background and Class features instead. That said, the Skills really aren't that obtrusive, are easy to calculate and understand. They're fine by me, to be honest.

 

[pdegan2814]

Maybe it's because I was out of the game for so long and missed a lot of the evolution of skill checks & the like within D&D, but I happen to like the current system quite a bit. I like tying them to ability scores, so that someone with a high enough Charisma for example would have some natural skill in things like Persuasion & Deception. And I like how they allow players to make their characters feel more unique even among others of the same race & class, by choosing different skills to specialize in. The skills a Fighter can choose to be proficient in for example support multiple "flavors" of character, from the outdoors-y scout, to the "student of war", to the pure brute, etc. Persuasion & Deception that I mentioned above are a classic example of why a basic ability check is oversimplifying it imho. Both are Charisma-based, but they are distinctly different skills. It's completely believable that someone would be good in one but not in the other, or good in both. With separate skill modifiers, each possibility can be easily represented. Like TrippyHippy said, the skill system is easy to understand & calculate.