D&D 5E 5e Skills whats your opinion

[THEMNGMNT]

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?)Seems simple & easy.

13A assumes both experience and maturity on the part of both players and DMs. 5E assumes the DM has the wherewithal to address any problems that come up. In my games, I like to think both are true, which is why this approach to skills could work at my table.

 

[Lanliss]

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.

I would argue that Proficiency shows that you have experience with something, and intelligence IS how you remember things, so it should play some role in proficiency. Of course, that is trying to put realism in a fantasy game, so that argument is slightly irrelevant.

 

[Satyrn]

I would argue that Proficiency shows that you have experience with something, and intelligence IS how you remember things, so it should play some role in proficiency. Of course, that is trying to put realism in a fantasy game, so that argument is slightly irrelevant.

And it does play a role. If you want to sound like you know something about climbing, you could be asked to make an Intelligence (athletics) check. A smart characters knows more about his subject, even if the stronger character is better at actually climbing.

 

[GX.Sigma]

My only problem with the skill system is how imbalanced the actual skills are. Skills like Perception and Stealth come up all the time, whereas Animal Handling and Sleight of Hand checks have each happened literally once at my table. Knowledge skills are very dependent on the DM's style, but IMXP they don't help all that much most of the time.

I'd rather move some of the less relevant skills into the "tool proficiencies" category (I'd also call that category "secondary skills" or something, because the tool idea just doesn't work for me).

 

[MechaPilot]

My only problem with the skill system is how imbalanced the actual skills are. Skills like Perception and Stealth come up all the time, whereas Animal Handling and Sleight of Hand checks have each happened literally once at my table. Knowledge skills are very dependent on the DM's style, but IMXP they don't help all that much most of the time.

I'd rather move some of the less relevant skills into the "tool proficiencies" category (I'd also call that category "secondary skills" or something, because the tool idea just doesn't work for me).

To be fair, all the skills depend on the DM's style and the type of campaign being run. I will grant you that Perception and Stealth are frequently relevant, but how important it is to succeed at those checks frequently varies with the DM's style and the type of campaign.

 

[Lehrbuch]

My only problem with the skill system is how imbalanced the actual skills are. Skills like Perception and Stealth come up all the time, whereas Animal Handling and Sleight of Hand checks have each happened literally once at my table.

Weapon proficiencies come up the most?

Knowledge skills are very dependent on the DM's style, but IMXP they don't help all that much most of the time.

This seems alien to my experience as both DM and player. In my experience, proficiency checks mostly occur because the players have engineered a situation whereby the proficiency applies. If the players want to make lots of Sleight of Hand checks, then they find lots of reasons to use them. Generally, players try to arrange it so that the skills their PCs are good at are required. But maybe allowing this to happen is what you mean by "DM style".

 

[Saeviomagy]

The list of skills is random and contains too much resolution in some places and not enough in others.
The rules for using specific skills are typically pretty poorly thought out.
Passive vs active skill distinction is totally arbitrary.
The distinction between tool proficiencies and regular skills is odd and unnecessary.
The allocation of skills between stats is arbitrary, random, illogical and completely unbalanced.
Expertise isn't very well thought out, leading to issues with verisimilitude.

In short, I find things are much better if I ignore most of the rules for them.

I revert to the old 3e 'take 10' and 'take 20' rules instead of passive vs active skills.
I allow pairing any skill with any stat with a sufficient justification
I allow a range of skills to fill the same niche (ie - you can usually switch athletics and acrobatics for each other. You can usually use deception, persuasion and intimidation interchangeably, and they could be defended against by a long list of skills, depending on the specific interaction)
I rewrite investigation to be "finding out information about a subject by interaction" and perception to be "finding out information about a subject without interaction"
Most skill contests pit a skill roll vs a static DC (ie - one side takes 10, the other side rolls)
I allow picking up any skill or language through 200 days of practice, which is not an exclusive task. Shorter periods of practice give partial proficiency.
Most tool proficiencies are just normal skills, and having a tool gives you a bonus.
Perform covers musical instruments, and also works as a "persuade/deceive/intimidate" for crowds.

 

[Tallifer]

5E has the best skill system among the various editions of D&D. Simple, mechanically consistent and transparent, flexible, bounded and easily modified for any world or campaign.

 

[Kalshane]

The Tool vs. Skill confusion comes up a lot, but it seems very clear to me. While there are corner cases where the concept doesn't hold universallly, a Tool Proficiency requires a physical object (ie a tool) to attempt a task, while a Skill does not.

Thieves' Tools is a tool proficiency, because if you don't have them (or at least something you can use as a rough approximation) you can't attempt to pick a lock or disable a trap.

Sleight of Hand is a Skill, because you're not using a tool (outside of situations like actually cutting someone's purse).


Musical Instrument is a tool proficiency because it involves playing a physical instrument.

Perform is a skill because it covers other things like Singing, Dancing, Oration, etc, where you only need your body and/or voice.

While some skills, such as Athletics to climb, can benefit from a tool (such as a climber's kit granting advantage on said checks) it's not required.

Likewise, someone proficient in Navigator's Tools could probably attempt to navigate without them, but would do so at disadvantage. Someone trying to pick a lock with a nail and some wire would likewise roll a Thieves' Tools check at disadvantage. Meanwhile, someone trying to pick the same lock without anything to approximate the tools couldn't make the attempt at all.

I think the 5E skill system is fine. It's a little rough around the edges at times, but it flows pretty simply and easily during play, IME.

 

[GX.Sigma]

My only problem with the skill system is how imbalanced the actual skills are...

Weapon proficiencies come up the most?

I was talking about skills, not proficiencies in general. You never have to choose between a weapon proficiency and a skill, only between a skill and another skill.

Knowledge skills are very dependent on the DM's style, but IMXP they don't help all that much most of the time...

This seems alien to my experience as both DM and player. In my experience, proficiency checks mostly occur because the players have engineered a situation whereby the proficiency applies. If the players want to make lots of Sleight of Hand checks, then they find lots of reasons to use them. Generally, players try to arrange it so that the skills their PCs are good at are required. But maybe allowing this to happen is what you mean by "DM style".

In this part I was talking about knowledge skills (Arcana, History, Nature, Religion), not skills in general. I'm not sure how a player can engineer a situation of "maybe knowing something, but being uncertain enough that you have to roll for it," or how that would be as consistently helpful as a high passive Perception.