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

[Falling Icicle]

Now that I have had plenty of time to think about the way they're doing skills in 5e, that is, not having a defined list of skills, but characters having a few skills that can be made up, I though I'd post my thoughts on the idea. While I like the idea of characters getting skills from their background (though I'd like them to get skills from their class as well, and not just rogues), I do not like the lack of a defined skill list for the following reasons.

First, it creates confusion. One of the common questions I ran into with the playtest was things like "what the heck is Forbidden Lore?," "what can I do with Commerce and Folklore?" and "what's the difference between Wilderness Lore and Survival?" All of those are good questions, and nothing in the playtest packet was any help at all in answering them. Sure, the DM can decide to allow certain skills to be used whenever he feels its appropriate, but I think it's better to have a solid foundation of defined uses for each skill to build upon rather than having to make such rulings constantly. It makes things more consistent and saves me alot of time and headache as a DM.

Second, the skills are going to be unbalanced. One player might have a skill called "History" that ends up, intentionally or not, being much more useful than "Religious Lore" or "Forbidden Lore." Likewise, just about any skill is less ueseful than Perception. Perception is something that will constantly be useful while things like Folklore will rarely every come into play. Yes, characters should be creative and try to find uses for their skills, but they can and should do so whatever skill system they're using. That's no defense for this particular way of doing skills.

I understand why they wanted to try an open-ended skill system. But players can be just as creative and make just as meaningfully diverse characers with a defined skill list as they can with an undefined on, IMO. People are always free to create their own homebrew material if they wish, including new skills. I'd even say that having a defined skill list makes it easier for people who want to create new skills, because it gives them a solid basis of comparison to balance against.

 

[GX.Sigma]

the way they're doing skills in 5e, that is, not having a defined list of skills

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/208759333188665344

@mikemearls Do you think we will ever see a defined list if skills in ‪#dndnext‬?

@SharnDM Yes. We'd like to avoid a sprawling list that just causes confusion.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Ah, so they are going to have a defined skill list after all. Thanks for the link.

 

[Oni]

I vastly prefer what was done with skills in the playtest packet as opposed to the last couple of editions, I would be extremely disappointed to see that go away.

 

[BobTheNob]

I vastly prefer what was done with skills in the playtest packet as opposed to the last couple of editions, I would be extremely disappointed to see that go away.

Ditto. I found the recent changes like a breath of fresh air, getting back to a game where it was worth players just giving it a go, leaving them free to play according to their problem solving skills, rather than being chained by their skill selections. Roll on 5e, roll on.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Now that I have had plenty of time to think about the way they're doing skills in 5e, that is, not having a defined list of skills, but characters having a few skills that can be made up, I though I'd post my thoughts on the idea. While I like the idea of characters getting skills from their background (though I'd like them to get skills from their class as well, and not just rogues), I do not like the lack of a defined skill list for the following reasons.

First, it creates confusion. One of the common questions I ran into with the playtest was things like "what the heck is Forbidden Lore?," "what can I do with Commerce and Folklore?" and "what's the difference between Wilderness Lore and Survival?" All of those are good questions, and nothing in the playtest packet was any help at all in answering them. Sure, the DM can decide to allow certain skills to be used whenever he feels its appropriate, but I think it's better to have a solid foundation of defined uses for each skill to build upon rather than having to make such rulings constantly. It makes things more consistent and saves me alot of time and headache as a DM.

Second, the skills are going to be unbalanced. One player might have a skill called "History" that ends up, intentionally or not, being much more useful than "Religious Lore" or "Forbidden Lore." Likewise, just about any skill is less ueseful than Perception. Perception is something that will constantly be useful while things like Folklore will rarely every come into play. Yes, characters should be creative and try to find uses for their skills, but they can and should do so whatever skill system they're using. That's no defense for this particular way of doing skills.

I understand why they wanted to try an open-ended skill system. But players can be just as creative and make just as meaningfully diverse characers with a defined skill list as they can with an undefined on, IMO. People are always free to create their own homebrew material if they wish, including new skills. I'd even say that having a defined skill list makes it easier for people who want to create new skills, because it gives them a solid basis of comparison to balance against.

This point is very valid, and it seems easy for the game designers to fall into the trap where "perception" is as much an investment as "forbidden lore," and (literally) infinitely more useful.

Fortunately, if anything even close to that makes it into a playtest document, the entire RPG community will pull out torches and pitchforks, so I don't think it's that much of an issue.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Ditto. I found the recent changes like a breath of fresh air, getting back to a game where it was worth players just giving it a go, leaving them free to play according to their problem solving skills, rather than being chained by their skill selections. Roll on 5e, roll on.

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.

This point is very valid, and it seems easy for the game designers to fall into the trap where "perception" is as much an investment as "forbidden lore," and (literally) infinitely more useful.

Fortunately, if anything even close to that makes it into a playtest document, the entire RPG community will pull out torches and pitchforks, so I don't think it's that much of an issue.

Um, that was in the playtest document. One of the characters has Perception as a skill, another has Forbidden Lore.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Um, that was in the playtest document. One of the characters has Perception as a skill, another has Forbidden Lore.

I meant in a draft with character creation.

 

[Oni]

A skill's usefulness is pretty much determined by A) how often the DM creates situations where it's useful B) how good the players are at convincing the DM that what they written on their character sheet is useful. Basically, you can't really balance skills, their use is greatly campaign and group dependent. A good example is social skills, how useful they are varies wildly from campaign to campaign and group to group.

 

[Li Shenron]

Just to mention, but even if 3ed had a list of skills, it was not meant to be "closed". In fact, many supplements suggested additional skills, especially for campaign settings that had their own focus on something. Skills were also never meant to be completely partitioned, their use sometimes overlapped.

None of these cause significant problems to the game, except to a player who is particularly obsessed with the rules being absolutely mathematical.