D&D 5E 5e Skills whats your opinion

[Lehrbuch]

At a warm-fuzzy level, I absolutely despise that skills are formally considered a special case of ability checks. It might just be a reminder of 2E NWP, but I don't like it. Skills are their own thing, and are modified by ability scores. In practice, it all works the same. It's just an itch I have with the 5E system.

As far as I can see, the primary point of Skills being a subset of Ability checks is to make it absolutely clear that every character can attempt everything. That is, it is explicit that the skill system does not aim to segregate off certain capabilities to only certain characters. Rather the skill system just makes characters better at some things.

 

[Mercule]

As far as I can see, the primary point of Skills being a subset of Ability checks is to make it absolutely clear that every character can attempt everything. That is, it is explicit that the skill system does not aim to segregate off certain capabilities to only certain characters. Rather the skill system just makes characters better at some things.

Yeah. It gets back to my comments about theory vs. practice. I'm revealing my own hypocrisy, here. I have no problem with how skills-as-ability-checks plays or the rules interactions. I just don't like the concept. My problem boils down to flavor text, which is generally easy to ignore. This thread just made me think about it again, which made me itch again.

 

[Draegn]

Do you give a huge number of additional skill selections? Otherwise this just decreases competency through skill bloat. Previously, because there was no underwater basket weaving skill, you'd just make a stat check, and the DC would be lower because someone couldnt get proficiency. Once you add the skill, the DC tends to rise, to where you NEED the skill to be as good as you were before it was implemented.

We use skill points. Players choose how many at chargen, depending on how old they create their characters through various background selections. You gain 3 points per year of age, you start at age 5 and select backgrounds to reach a minimum of age 15. There is a difference between the 15 year old street urchin/courtesan and the 45 year old wizard apprentice/mage/archmage.

After chargen players gain 1 point per 1000 exp, to use on increasing skills, attributes, or purchasing "feats".

Most of our "DC" are skill vs skill. A thief picking a lock is going against the locksmith that built it. Not all locks are equal, and not all locksmiths are masters at their trade.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

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

Too much of the core system is designed around having those skills there, particularly in the classes, subclasses, features and in named checks in adventure paths. I also tend to like systems that are additive from simple to complex in terms of DMs end rules modules. I realize why they ended up where they did and in terms of keeping various playstyles happy it is a compromise that satisfies a lot of them without really rubbing anyone the wrong way. It is just not my preference. I think in a system like 5e that was actually a major design goal. This one just happens to be my bugaboo. Other people might have issues with other areas of the game that I am totally fine with.

 

[Shaghayegh]

True, but it's a separate character defect which can also not be represented in the D&D ruleset.

Every possible character can succeed at a Hard (DC 15) Intelligence check.
Every possible character can fail at an Easy (DC 10) Intelligence check.
No character is so dumb as to make learning very difficult, or so smart as to make it substantially easier.

These are extremes of the human condition which the game simply does not represent. If you want to call that a failing of the system, then go right ahead.

Pretty much, yes. The skill system is crap.

 

[Shaghayegh]

Intelligence doesn't imply capability to learn (either the D&D Ability, or in the real-world sense of the word).

Skills are capabilities, in D&D. There is nothing that implies these must have been acquired by learning, and there is nothing that implies every character acquired a single capability in the same manner.

Then what is Intelligence? You comment makes no sense, do people magically acquire skills by osmosis in the real world?

 

[Shaghayegh]

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.

I used an example based on a possible background, but since when is not knowing how to swim unusual? I know lots of people who do not know how to swim, I bet you know a few as well...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm the opposite of the OP. I like the way 13th Age handles skills. It's loose and freewheeling, not granular or simulationist.

It's also pretty broken. All too easy for one Background (13A skill) to cover a lot more than another, for instance. (Ironically, while I consider that a problem in 13A, in 5e it wouldn't be so bad, every check calls for a DM ruling anyway, so why not?)

I want to go back to something more like AD&D's secondary skill rule. Essentially the player would select a profession, and then when they go to do something, if they can relate the task to their profession in some way they get to add their proficiency bonus.

Seems simple & easy. I suppose it'd replace backgrounds, or at least the skill gained from them...

The vagueness of 1E "skills" caused problems for my group. The 2E NWP sucked more than any other iteration. 3E/3.5 skills were a nod in the right direction, but were (generally) only of value if you maxed out your favored skills, which is pretty binary. I don't recalled 4E skills, honestly. The 5E skills are a lot like 3E skills, in practice (binary), but address some math problems.

Ironically, 4e & 5e skills are very similar. 5e adds a proficiency bonus of 2 if you were trained, then boosts that bonus as high as 6 of you level or 12 if you have expertise. 4e boosted all your checks by 1/2 level, and you gained a +5 bonus if you were trained. The difference is treadmill vs bounded accuracy. Where both deviate from 3e is that, if you're trained in some skills, your bonus from training & leveling is the same in all of them, only stats and any other special modifiers change that, while in 3.5, that first rank made you 'trained,' but you had to keep investing ranks to keep up as you leveled.

As far as I can see, the primary point of Skills being a subset of Ability checks is to make it absolutely clear that every character can attempt everything.

Could be. But, the DM can always decide an 'untrained' character (or any given character for whatever reason) auto-fails or a 'trained' (or whatever) one auto-succeeds, before it comes down to that check. So, if one did like the 'trained only' aspect of 3e, as a DM, you can still effectively use it.

 

[Rhenny]

One thing I didn't like about granular skill systems was how it prompted players to look at their character sheets too often when deciding what their characters would do in any given situation.

I like the idea of loose ability checks tied into the attributes. I want to encourage players to just think organically through their characters without having to check if they "have" the skill. To some extent, 5e does help with this.

Eventually, I may even run 5e with a free form skill system where the player only needs to know his/her class and background. Then, if an action that the player has the PC do seems to fit within the class or background, I'll add the proficiency. Sure, this will be more lenient and may give players more opportunities to add proficiency to their skill rolls, but I figure that people usually play D&D to do cool stuff and be bad-ass. I don't mind rewarding that at all.

Basically, if it seems logical that the PC would have had some prior experience with the skill, add the proficiency. (For rogues, I'd probably still use the expertise 2x checks for stealth and thieves' tools).

Now that I think about it, it might be cool to give each class at least one skill expertise (perhaps even some choice). Fighters - intimidation or athletics; Wizards - Arcana or History; Rangers - perception or survival; Barbarians - intimidation or survival; Clerics - Religion, Medicine or History; Druids - Nature, Handle Animal or Medicine...etc.

I know in one of the playtest packages they toyed around with the idea of granting proficiency by class depending on key attribute (i.e. fighters get proficiency on Strength, etc.). That seems to lump too much into the attributes though. I'd rather decide on a case by case basis considering both class and background.

 

[MechaPilot]

Then what is Intelligence? You comment makes no sense, do people magically acquire skills by osmosis in the real world?

People acquire skills in the real world by putting in the effort to practice them to proficiency. Being very intelligent might allow you to attain proficiency with less practice, with might being the operative word. However, intelligence is not going to substantially help you become proficient in physical skills like climbing, leaping, or swimming any more than having a natural talent for athletics is going to help you become proficient at math or foreign languages. Acquiring a skill is far less a function of intelligence than it is a function of determination and time.

As for "what is Intelligence," it is what it is. In the D&D rules "what is intelligence" is defined for us as logic, education, memory, and deductive reasoning. And you are naturally free to adjust that definition as you see fit because the rules are not absolutes.