D&D 5E 5e Skills whats your opinion

[Onussen]

Too many cooks skills spoil the soup game. I like that 5e keeps them simple and broadly applicable. This way, characters aren't strangely limited in their actions because they don't have that very specific skill. The 5e skill system is a nice enough compromise of the C&C system-- use one of your six abilities-- and the (IMHO) bloated and distended skill systems of the 3.xe and 4e systems.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

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.

I think they needed an option in the DMG for "specializations" or some such; like having "Athletics", and being able to specialize in, say "Climbing"; you would then get, say +2 to Athletics when Climbing, but -1 to Athletics for everything else it's used for. Something like that. Anyway...

Aside from that, I think you are looking at skills (and pretty much the entirety of the 5e rule set), "backwards". IMHO, you shouldn't be taking the rules and then making the world fit them...you should be taking your world and making the rules fit it.

If you have a "problem", with the rules not allowing, by RAW, a PC to learn an instrument, but not how to sing, then fix/change it to fit your campaign world. You don't have to wait for some "Canonical True Word From On High" (re: "sage advice", or "tweets", etc), you don't have to wait for some official book to come out with new rules, you don't have to wait for someone else to write something up and put it on the DMGuild for $1. In fact, IMHO, waiting for someone else to do it is going against the spirit of the 5e rules; rulings, not rules. Make it up yourself, based on how and what you want for your campaign.

There is absolutely nothing stopping you (assuming your DM here) from saying "Ok, same rules for learning a Tool, but you can learn a specific skill....like "Sing", or "Climb", or "Weaponcrafting". It will fit under whatever skill makes most sense for it. Just run it by me first and we'll work out any details". POOF! Now the 5e rules fit your campaign. Now it's truly your campaign...not just another cookie-cut world with no unique personal touches. Having a campaign that you and your players can call your own, and actually mean it, is something that nobody who runs just "another FR campaign using the RAW and official FR stuff" can match. Period. End of discussion.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[dave2008]

There was a mechanically small but flexibily large difference in the D&D Next play-test system that became 5e. Skills weren't tied to specific abilities.

So you could provide a critique of a performance with Int (Perform) or look at a blueprint of the estate grounds to devise a route to take the party in unseen with Int (Stealth). Bend an iron bar and use Str (Intimidation). It gave a lot more flexibility. Sure, there's a default for the common use-case, but it handles all of the cases intuitively.

I could be wrong, but in my memory of the PHB the flexibility is still there. I believe they give examples of using different abilities for the same skill. Also, I believe the default of asking for a skill (ability) check is to identify which attribute to apply to the skill (since it could be a different ability). Now, I also remember it leaning pretty heavily to one attribute, but I think the flexibility is there.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I wish they had just ditched the individual skills from the PHB and gone with the optional "Proficiency in Attributes" the default and then presented several variant skill systems in the DMG.

Oh well, I guess maybe we will see that in 6th Edition in 2024.

 

[wedgeski]

I just started reading through the PH, I have not seen the DMG. So far, the skill rules look totally inadequate. The list is too short and some the skills are way too broad. Athletics? How do you simulate a desert nomad who lives in rocky hills but has never swam in her life? She just sees the ocean for the first time in her life and she knows how to swim because she is "athletic"? That makes sense how?

Then she simply can't swim, or attempts it instinctively at Disadvantage. Your example being such a rare corner-case is exactly the reason why "Strength (Swimming)" should *not* be in the skill list.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't like 5e's skill system. I wish they were far more optional. Unfortunately, they're intimately tied to the Background system so if you want to ditch skills you have to rewrite or ditch Backgrounds.

That's not true, you can just ignore the background skill proficiencies or you could replace them with something else (like proficiency to any check related to the background's focus).

Rather, where skills are tied to the system is the classes, because you can't remove skills from the game entirely without hurting the Rogue, Bard and Ranger more than the others.

Too many cooks skills spoil the soup game. I like that 5e keeps them simple and broadly applicable. This way, characters aren't strangely limited in their actions because they don't have that very specific skill.

For me it's the opposite: with so few skills as in 5e, almost every PC party can manage to cover them all, and that spoils the game, in the sense that many players are spoiled to think that everything can be resolved with a skill check instead of thinking, and when they miss the very specific skill they feel their actions are limited (your words), which they are not.

I like the 5e skills system broadly, but if I could have changed one thing, I would have exactly increased the skills list.

 

[BryonD]

Aside from that, I think you are looking at skills (and pretty much the entirety of the 5e rule set), "backwards". IMHO, you shouldn't be taking the rules and then making the world fit them...you should be taking your world and making the rules fit it.

If you have a "problem", with the rules not allowing, by RAW, a PC to learn an instrument, but not how to sing, then fix/change it to fit your campaign world. You don't have to wait for some "Canonical True Word From On High" (re: "sage advice", or "tweets", etc), you don't have to wait for some official book to come out with new rules, you don't have to wait for someone else to write something up and put it on the DMGuild for $1. In fact, IMHO, waiting for someone else to do it is going against the spirit of the 5e rules; rulings, not rules. Make it up yourself, based on how and what you want for your campaign.

This is dead on right.

As someone once said, "Use the rules, don't let the rules use you".

5E RAW is really very simplistic in a lot of places. There has been a lot of call over recent years for simple games with low entry points and ease of play for new entries. But there is also a lot of demand (and expectation) for more complex systems. 5E is sweet because it is founded on a bunch of super simple systems. But there are a ton of more advanced systems already available and pretty much anyone who wants the more complex is going to be comfortable plugging something else in the slot where a simple system is default.

My game has a longer list of skills and skill points.
I also have negative HP and much slower natural healing. I have expanded the proficiency bonus so it tops out at 8 and retooled everything for a slightly higher top end on the bounding and used this design space doe adding in weapon focus and other customizations. Now there is more differentiation between characters both numerically and in areas of specialization.
My game looks a lot more like 3E than it does RAW 5E, though it still is very clearly built on the 5E foundation.

That is what is great about the system. You may be underwhelmed by some part of 5E RAW and hate my changes, but you can still change things in your own way and the system completely gets out of the way and encourages you to do that.

 

[SkidAce]

There was a mechanically small but flexibily large difference in the D&D Next play-test system that became 5e. Skills weren't tied to specific abilities.

So you could provide a critique of a performance with Int (Perform) or look at a blueprint of the estate grounds to devise a route to take the party in unseen with Int (Stealth). Bend an iron bar and use Str (Intimidation). It gave a lot more flexibility. Sure, there's a default for the common use-case, but it handles all of the cases intuitively.

I still do this if it makes sense in the context of the situation.

 

[Imaro]

I wish they had just ditched the individual skills from the PHB and gone with the optional "Proficiency in Attributes" the default and then presented several variant skill systems in the DMG.

Oh well, I guess maybe we will see that in 6th Edition in 2024.

I'm confused... you have the variant rule, why not just implement it?

 

[Mallus]

Skills work fine in 5e -- though I do like the ways skills/backgrounds are abstracted in 13th Age better.

Speaking of skills, anyone try running a knowledge skill-monkey in 5e? I'm currently working on Dr. Karl Kartoffelpopper the Illogical Positivist, with Expertise in Nature, Arcana, Religion, and Investigation. Basically a fightin' PhD (fighter 1/lore bard 10). Eventually I'll take a break from DMing, and it's been noted the other PCs in the party are all different shades of plum ignorant.