D&D 5E 5e Skills - Why I Think a Defined Skill List Would Be Better

[ren1999]

I love what 5th edition has done with skills and I don't want many changes.

I didn't even notice that the Cleric with high wisdom was better at finding traps than the Rogue.

People on ENWorld are saying it is a poorly designed Rogue and I agree, but it does point out something we need to keep talking about.

There needs to be a template of skills, about 30 that people new to the game can study so they'll have an idea of how to turn anything into a skill challenge with the 5th edition rules given.

I don't think that skills that every party member needs to survive should be be skills. I think they should be ability rolls.

All 4E Athletics and Endurance Skills should be Strength or Constitution rolls.

All Perception/Listen/Spot/Detect/Initiative Skills shouldn't be connected to just wisdom, dexterity, or intelligence. They should be an average of them all. Perhaps Perception can be the average of wisdom and intelligence and initiative can be the average of dexterity, wisdom and intelligence.

Other skills that every party member should have.
Climb Skill, Stealth.

So sure. Known skills should grant +3. But let's add that to a relevant ability score.

To address the cleric with the high wisdom, perhaps the cleric doesn't know how to find traps even with a high wisdom. He should not be allowed. Only the rogue who was trained by other experienced rogues should be allowed the attempt. Having a high wisdom does not indicate you know anything about traps or where to look for them. Wisdom should only be added to your skill in finding traps.

Does this negate the solo adventure? Maybe. But we could make a rule. If there is no character with the appropriate skill -- then abilities may be rolled instead. The cleric can then try to find traps.

 

[Harlock]

I have no problem with skills being either un or loosely defined. The cardinal abilities should cover most everything. If you can describe it to your DM you can go from there. I seem to recall earlier rulesets being set up that way and it worked fine in all but the most ruleslawerly, adversarial DM-player relations groups. Skills clutter up a streamlined game and take it from casual to nitpicky in no time flat.

DM: "You see the princess tied to a chair."
Player: "I untie the princess."
DM: "Hold on, make a perception check."
Player: "Uh, (rolling) 18!"
DM: "Great, you notice that it is a complicated knot. What is your knot-tying skill?"
Player: "I have +3 in sailing knots."
DM: "Sorry, this is a cargo knot."
Player: "What do ships carry? Cargo!"
DM: "No, sailing knots is for rigging, um, sails and stuff. At least, I read that on the internet. I have no real knot-tying experience myself."
Player: "Well, I was in scouts, all knots are basically the same. It's a general kind of deal. If a knot is effective for cargo, it is effective in sailing. Er, well, I guess. I've never sailed."
DM: "Well, still, it says its a cargo knot and there is a cargo knot skill and a sailing knot skill and you don't have the one listed.
... 5 minutes later
Player 2: "I cut @%$&ing the ropes with my dagger! Geeze, would you two shut up!"
DM: "Oh. I guess that works too."

We don't need rules for everything, and if you do, you are playing with the wrong people.

 

[drothgery]

Just to be clear, there's alot about how 5e is handling skills that I like. I like the flatter math and greater emphasis on ability scores that let players attempt things without skill training. My complaint here is just that there's not a defined skill list.

I don't think the 'flatter math' of a small-ish bonuse for training (+3 or less) really works well with d20 + ability modifier (as long as we're using 3e/4e style ability modifier progressions); the ability modifier overwhelms training, and I don't think that's a good thing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think the 'flatter math' of a small-ish bonuse for training (+3 or less) really works well with d20 + ability modifier (as long as we're using 3e/4e style ability modifier progressions); the ability modifier overwhelms training, and I don't think that's a good thing.

Wanna swap out that +3 for Advantage?

 

[Sigdel]

I have no problem with the players improvising skill usage, as long as it makes sense.

But I would like a list of the most used skills so that I know what to call for as a DM. It's irritating when I am looking for the right skill and the game just tells me, "Make crap up."

When I want to use building blocks and someone hand me a chunk of plastic and a carving knife, I get irritated. Now using Legos means that I have to use building blocks that follow someone else vision of them, but they are broad enough that I can make most anything.

I do thing that certain skills should have a broad form and narrow form. For example; Arcane Science covers a broad number of topics and training in it gets you a +3 to all those. Alchemy, what could be considered a discipline of Arcane Science, is focused on just alchemy and those subjects that fall under it gets you a +4.

 

[drothgery]

Wanna swap out that +3 for Advantage?

Advantage = extra dice rolls = another mechanic I really don't like.

 

[BobTheNob]

I have said before, and just to re-iterate, my like is for us not to have a defined skill system, to have a loose, interpretive approach.

When I think about it, this does come down to my group. The first of us turns 40 soon (gulp) and our playstyle has shifted from the old days. In the old days, we would have disputed decision to our last breath (as boys tend to do) and so a well defined skill system did a great job of reigning that in. We are different people now now are looking for a different experience. Sure, quantify all of your characters capabilities can be fun, but really, as we get older the narrative experience is what is becoming the greater requirement.

Hyper accurate numerical representation of character capability just isnt that important. To me, its like solving the problem that wasnt a problem in the first place. We are all dads now, we have gotten to a point where we realize that playing the game is a collaboration between player and DM, not a competition.

We dont need strongly defined rules to govern what is right to a microcosmic level because, frankly, players know when to accept the DM's decision and vice versa. Its the story thats important, not the roll, and if you dont get your way, thats alright, as long as the story keeps pushing forward.

Sure, properly defined skills are a great mechanism to ensure everyone is strictly aware of what they are capable of and disputes dont arise. But if those disputes are not arising, then defined skill sets are kind of redundant. Even worse, they become a crutch which prevents imaginative problem solving (and boy, I saw that in 3e and 4e...it became painful).

For the gamers my group has become, skill lists are actually problematic. Thats why I vote for backgrounds for my group. I wouldnt DREAM to tell you what is best for your group...just trying to relate my experience so you dont dismiss my position.

 

[Harlock]

Even worse, they become a crutch which prevents imaginative problem solving (and boy, I saw that in 3e and 4e...it became painful).

That was my experience as well. I wonder if it truly -is- because of age? I am 39 in two months. I have little patience anymore for minutiae and want a much more open environment, like OD&D was for me as a child when, oddly enough, the story mattered more and rules less, too. I've no need or desire to min-max the system to "beat" the game, and as I stated before and agree with you, Bob, I'd rather not see a skills system at all when attributes cover it. The DM section in Next really appeals to that aspect as it stresses that style right up front.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I don't think the 'flatter math' of a small-ish bonuse for training (+3 or less) really works well with d20 + ability modifier (as long as we're using 3e/4e style ability modifier progressions); the ability modifier overwhelms training, and I don't think that's a good thing.

Oh, I agree. I've been arguing for skills to grant at least a +5 bonus instead. I was just speaking of the flatter math in general.

 

[the Jester]

Hmm....

While I prefer the "undefined skill" thing as presented to a defined skill list, I do think a list of a few example skills is a good idea. But it seems to me that part of the point of the "undefined skills" system is to encourage rulings over rules, and I'd hate to lose that.

I also agree that perception, as a skill, is an uber-skill. I LOVE the idea upthread of applying Wilderness Lore to checks to notice things hiding in the wilderness and so on.