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

[mjb235]

I actually like the proficiency concept. But yeah, I didn't see why there needed to be such specific skills when players could potentially want something out of the box.

But I can see the arguments against. Here's a bad example:
"I should be able to wear that armor, I'm proficient in stealth"
"I don't see how being proficient in stealth makes you capable of wearing medium armor"
"I beg to differ! It says right there 'Hide' armor!"

 

[Psikerlord#]

Actually I probably wouldn't have noticed this if I wasn't so enamored with many of the changes 13th age did. But I think some of the answers I got in this thread gave me a better idea of what direction 5e was going for. So I understand it better. But I loved the background system in 13th age and if I didn't have such a hard time figuring out how one "Gets more backgrounds" at higher level (Read: Any class that would get more skill proficiencies) I'd probably slap it into 5e and call it a day.

We use both in our 5e games.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What I'm wondering is why did they need to print skills in the first place? Beyond maybe for class or background proficiency choices.

Sure, they could have done away with anything as explicit as skills & tool proficiencies entirely, and gone with letting the DM decide whether proficiency applies to a given check on a case-by-case basis, using Background, Class and the like (feats, character backstory, what you've been doing with your downtime, past experience, etc, etc) as guides.

But, 5e is trying to be familiar, and skills/non-weapon-proficiencies have been with the game at least since the late-80s 'Survival Guides,' since Greyhawk if you count Thief 'Special' Abilities. A little customizeabilty based on picking from a short list of skills makes it more acceptable to fans of modern editions, too.

Ultimately, it doesn't need to matter to the DM. You can call for skill checks, or you can call for stat checks 'with proficiency' more or less ignoring what skills you players chose.

 

[Mistwell]

I understand.

Essentially what I was missing is that this system is designed for expedience of play and ease. I still get into the mindset of assuming everyone enjoys the same style of game I do. Which I understand and accept is a terrible mindset to have. Assuming I continue using this system I personally would like to remove the "Defined" skills for my group. I think I can trust my players and I to come up with agreeable rules and and understanding of what is an acceptable proficiency or not. But I can see how the particular mindset of the target audience for this game would be delighted to have such a simple set up.

Thank you, for the record I do love this system. It just bugged me wondering why defining the skills was initially necessary when all they were were attribute rolls with or without a modifier. Especially considering I came from Pathfinder where you had to micromanage every single skill point and could have numbers wildly varying all over the place.

The 5e playtest had no defined skills for a lot of iterations. They added defined skills pretty late in development really. Before that, everything was an ability check. It worked fine. Mike Mearls talks about the change here.

 

[Imaro]

[MENTION=6804470]mjb235[/MENTION] There is actually a variant rule in the DMG called Background Proficiency, in a nutshell it gets rid of the hard-coded list of skills and allows proficiency bonus to be added to any thing you are attempting that falls under the purview of the background for your character. This seems more in line with what you are looking for in a skill system and is similar, but not the same as the skill system from 13th Age. It's funny I started playing 5e about a year ago with just the rules from the PHB but have recently started really delving into the DMG and am finding a nice sampling of options and modifications for the game.

 

[BoldItalic]

Skills are what differentiate PCs from each other, in non-combat situations. A player whose PC has a unique skill (unique within the party, that is) will naturally get the spotlight when the opportunity to use it comes up because the others will look to them as "the best man for the job", even if the numerical difference it makes to the chances of success is marginal. That player will feel that they are contributing something positive to the success of the party and that makes the game more enjoyable for them. It is up to the DM to ensure that each player is given the opportunity to shine during play sessions, by throwing in situations which allow their particular skills to be valuable. It is easier for the DM to do this if the skills are formalised.

 

[fjw70]

I don't use the hard coded skills with 5e. I just give the prof bonus to anything that is reasonable based on race/class/background.

 

[RadarMonk]

The point of skills is to make characters unique. Why should the fighter with a high dexterity who knows nothing about locks be just as good at picking them as the thief who has spent all his life practicing opening locks.

 

[Sunseeker]

Personally, this is why I was fond of the word "training" in 4e. Anyone can be proficient in anything for any reason, but training represents something completely different, a specialized skill set that represents invested time and effort. Half-elves are proficient in two skills 'cause they're born that way.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

DMG p 263-264.

This is addressing exactly what you are looking for. If I were you, I'd first read that, then ask people for ideas if it weren't working for me. No need to reference other systems or house rules when the book you paid for has it right there (unless you don't have access to book, of course).