Are Skills Mechanically Important in d20?

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

The following quote is from a thread I started earlier:

Skills are not that mechanically important in D&D IMO, they are overshadowed by class abilities, feats, magic, abilities, and equipment.

I think this is an incredibly interesting point of view. (I'm not like calling you out, Voadam. I've never heard this view on skills expressed and want to see what others have to say - I hope that's alright ).

So - basically - I'm wondering if you agree.

If you agree with the statement - does your opinion change in a low-magic game?


I see skills as absolutely crucial mechanically (and in many other ways). For example, I don't see a replacement for a good tumble check or a wicked listen skill. As a spell caster, concentration plays such a huge role in how effective you are in combat.

I see skills as a major part of what your character truly *is*. Maybe that's because in our D&D game I've been left to fight equipment less too many times... but I put a lot of emphasis on the skills that I have and how I invest them because I feel that they are so important to the game.

Currently, my group is playing in a very low magic game and we bank on our skill sets so frequently. Whether it be disguise, move silently, or tumble checks it seems that we are almost constantly rolling one skill check or another... so - how can it be mechanically insignificant?

((Wasn't sure if this should be General or Rules... so I went with General...))

 

[carpedavid]

I think it may depend on the GM, honestly, and how often he or she calls for skill checks. I call for skill checks all the time: Listen, Spot, Search, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Tumble tend to be the ones I call for the most often, but they all get used eventually.

I can see, though, how some GMs might hand-wave away some of these things. However, I wouldn't enjoy playing in a game like that, and I get the impression that my players wouldn't either. To quote one of my players, they "like rolling dice."

 

[reveal]

I think skills are very important. As people, we have a skillset we learn and grow throughout our lives. We learn to communicate better, how to operate mechanical devices better, etc. We use a combination of experience and practice to become better at the skills we have evolved.

D&D is no different. If a player doesn't want his character to simply become a reflection of his real-life personality, he must invest in a skillset that is specific to that character. Tumble, for example. IRL if someone took a swing at me, I'd be hard pressed to tumble out of the way but my character can do it in a heartbeat because I've got 15 ranks in it.

Bluff and diplomacy are a little more in the "gray area" insofar as they are skills that most people are decent at, or at least understand the concept better than other skills like Disable Device and Open Locks. Again, however, if you don't want your character to be as good/bad as you are IRL at bluffing or being diplomatic, you have to invest in those skills. I suck at bluffing but my character has 10 ranks in it. Should I be penalized simpy because *I* suck and not be able to roll? No, I should be allowed to roll and let my character speak for himself.

 

[Zeit]

Although it greatly depends on playstyle and campaign, that view is, in my opinion at least, right.
However, I first started with skill-based RPG systems a decade ago (the major one being The Black Eye), so it really hit me, so to speak. Generally, it is all about class abilities and combat in core DnD, not about the characters and the representation of pseudo-real-life characters they are supposed to be. The skill system feels really like an afterthought to me.

 

[reveal]

Although it greatly depends on playstyle and campaign, that view is, in my opinion at least, right.
However, I first started with skill-based RPG systems a decade ago (the major one being The Black Eye), so it really hit me, so to speak. Generally, it is all about class abilities and combat in core DnD, not about the characters and the representation of pseudo-real-life characters they are supposed to be. The skill system feels really like an afterthought to me.

I think it depends on what kind of game you play, though. If you play hack n' slash, skills don't matter. If you play more of a "let's RP everything" game, combat and abilities don't matter.

 

[Shade]

I think it depends on the skill. Spellcasters and rogues will find the game mighty difficult without Concentration and Tumble, respectively.

Spot/Listen and Hide/Move Silently are also incredibly important. Even if you are invisible, you can still benefit from a good Hide skill.

Skills like Gather Information and Survival are a bit trickier. As others pointed out, it depends on the style of game.

 

[AIM-54]

I agree with Voadam. Having played other skill-based games, where what skills you have determines your abilities across the board (combat, social, technical, magical) D&D's skill system is heavily overshadowed by feats, special abilities and equipment. Sure, it's a vast improvement over 2E, but when many of the abilities key to the game (combat, magic) operate on different bases, it pushes the skills to a lesser position. They support the character, fill in some useful details and can be more or less important in any given group, but they are never the key component that class, feat choice, and magic/special abilities are. Players agonize over what feats to take or spells to learn, not what to invest skill points in.

 

[Rasyr]

Skills are not that mechanically important in D&D IMO, they are overshadowed by class abilities, feats, magic, abilities, and equipment.

I would have to say that I agree with this statement as far as the core assumptions of the game go. Everything he lists does go towards overshadowing the actual skills themselves. Part of this is the extremely limited number of skill points each class receives. And part of it is the way that all those different types of bonuses stack with one another. They will overshadow the natural skill bonuses a character might have.

For things that vary from the core assumptions (like a low-magic game), you mileage will vary considerably according to the emphasis of your game.

 

[wedgeski]

Skills are unbelievably important for defining the non-combat aspects of a character. If that isn't important to some DM's, then that's fair enough, but there's barely 5 minutes that goes by in my games without someone rolling a skill check. I like the core set of d20 skills, I think they work well and they open the door to customisation for DM's (Knowledge skills especially). I enjoy integrating them with the roleplaying around the table, and it's very easy to do.

It does honestly grate with me when I read about a DM who disregards Charisma-based skills because 'it should be done with roleplaying'. At the risk of a hijack, I feel it's those skills in particular that epitomise the difference between a player and their character.

 

[Crothian]

Skills are very important. They aren't as shiny as other things in the game but they can be very useful.