D&D 5E 5e Skills whats your opinion

[Erik Westmarch]

I'm not a fan of skill systems in my D&D. They're just not well suited to the class-based advancement system that the system is built around and assumes. But 5E has Skills, and the Rogue really needs them, so this is my solution

- You have the Skills your class and background says you have, but they are not associated with any particular stat.
- Any time you want to do something that isn't an attack, a stat check is called for. Dex, Int, whatever. If the PC and I agree that one of their Skills is relevant to the check, the Proficiency bonus is added.

I think this is the right way to look at it, because it encourages everyone to "try anything, make a stat check", and if they can add the Prof bonus on top that's just a bonus, not a gatekeeping requirement.

Tools proficiencies I handle differently. They're more binary. If you don't have the Brewing Prof, then there's no hope of brewing up a good beer. If you have it, you can brew up a basic beer without any checks. You just know how. I might call for a stat check if you're trying to brew a prize-winning variety.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The general flow of "Let the GM/DM figure it out" is what at least to me feels like fate. It always feels like outside of combat, which is actually covered very well, 5e just feels like it just wants to be free form which FATE isnt by its nature but its often compared to be 2 steps away. So I will apologize to FATE fans by essentially using its stereotype

Interesting. Yes, 5e depends on the DM to manage resolution, I hadn't thought of that as being FATE-like, because it's just a more formal description of how the classic game tended to be played, anyway. Player describes action, DM decides how to resolve it. An example in 1e, for instance, memorably posited a player declaring an action that the DM ruled would take several rounds to complete.

 

[Kite474]

Interesting. Yes, 5e depends on the DM to manage resolution, I hadn't thought of that as being FATE-like, because it's just a more formal description of how the classic game tended to be played, anyway. Player describes action, DM decides how to resolve it. An example in 1e, for instance, memorably posited a player declaring an action that the DM ruled would take several rounds to complete.

That matches up with what I hear of older editions. Ultimately I suppose the "Big Thing" of 5e is idea of what a GM/DM is supposed to be. Granted that argument is long, quick to catch fire, lasted generations at this point, and generally never helpful to anyone when it comes up.

As for why I used Fate over older editions. They were long before my time and I have had experience with FATE.

 

[Xeviat]

- You have the Skills your class and background says you have, but they are not associated with any particular stat.
- Any time you want to do something that isn't an attack, a stat check is called for. Dex, Int, whatever. If the PC and I agree that one of their Skills is relevant to the check, the Proficiency bonus is added.

I think this is the right way to look at it, because it encourages everyone to "try anything, make a stat check", and if they can add the Prof bonus on top that's just a bonus, not a gatekeeping requirement.

I like this. I'm using Roll20 now, so venturing too far from the core is difficult with the premade character sheets. I'm not sure how to go and make my own character sheets for that. It reminds me of skills in other systems, like WoD. Athletics could be Strength in a lot of cases, but also Dex or Con, or even Int if you're teaching someone.

 

[Erik Westmarch]

I'm not sure how to go and make my own character sheets for that.

I like starting with a blank sheet of paper and a pencil. Or a blank page in Notepad. The Skills section is just a list of words now - no numbers or anything.

Athletics could be Strength in a lot of cases, but also Dex or Con, or even Int if you're teaching someone.

That's it exactly.

 

[iserith]

I like this. I'm using Roll20 now, so venturing too far from the core is difficult with the premade character sheets. I'm not sure how to go and make my own character sheets for that. It reminds me of skills in other systems, like WoD. Athletics could be Strength in a lot of cases, but also Dex or Con, or even Int if you're teaching someone.

The DM calling for an ability check and the players inquiring as to whether a proficiency bonus applies is part of the core rules. The Basic Rules mentions it and the DMG goes into further depth on the subject.

The DMG also talks about an approach where the DM calls for an ability check for just about anything that isn't an attack, but sagely advises that there are potentially serious drawbacks to the approach.

 

[Xeviat]

I like starting with a blank sheet of paper and a pencil. Or a blank page in Notepad. The Skills section is just a list of words now - no numbers or anything.

As I said, I'm only playing on Roll20 at the moment, and not using the sheets people make there would lose out on functionality and add time to play that Roll20 normally saves.

 

[Kalshane]

Depending on my mood, my reaction to a player asking to use Sleight of Hand to build a clock would range from falling over in a fit of laughter to simply to saying "No."

As I said, I'm only playing on Roll20 at the moment, and not using the sheets people make there would lose out on functionality and add time to play that Roll20 normally saves.

We're playing in Roll20 (and started well before the official sheets became a thing). I have global macros for each of the ability checks that look like this:

Charisma-Check

/em rolls a Charisma check
/r 1d20 @{selected|Charisma}
Add @{selected|Proficiency} if Proficient
Dis/Adv Roll [[1d20@{selected|Charisma}]]

The PC in question just has to have their token selected when they activate the macro and then do quick math of adding their proficiency bonus to the final roll. You might have to change the name of the targeted values to match whatever the official sheets use, but it should work for "non-standard" skill checks.

 

[psychophipps]

Kalshane; Depending on my mood, my reaction to a player asking to use Sleight of Hand to build a clock would range from falling over in a fit of laughter to simply to saying "No."

Pretty much my reaction as well. There is a reason why there is an entire industry of highly skilled and specialized craftsmen called "clock makers", and that reason is not because clocks are made by people good at card tricks and lacking all other qualifiers.

 

[WarpedAcorn]

So whats your opinion on skills in 5e. Personally I think their half assed. You cant learn new skills but you can pay to learn tool proficiencies, so you can learn to play any instrument but cant learn to sing. Same stat same level all skills are equal, even if the one person/NPC makes a living off being a guide (survival) the cleric with the skill and same stat and level is equal. Just a few of the things I dislike about the 5e skill system. BUT I'm still having loads of fun playing.

This is totally at the DM discretion, but if I had a player who stated repeatedly that they were practicing the Lute or Studying relgious texts, then I might give them Advantage on rolls for a little while on whatever task that they are showing a focus on. But I do agree, it would be nice to gain Skill Proficiency or a bonus every few levels. A lot of it boils down to Player and DM communication though. Like if I've been in 100 dungeons and have fallen into 100 spike traps, then it might stand to reason my Investigation Skill to spot said trap would be slightly higher than the +1 my Ability Score grants.