D&D General Do you prefer more or less Skills?

[DeviousQuail]

For something like D&D I want fewer. Athletics covering swimming, climbing, and jumping works for me. I like when you have a general skill and can then boost "sub-skills" via advantage, minimum roll boosts, special abilities, etc.

After dipping my toes into Cypher I learned that I'm not a huge fan of the open ended list of skills. However, Coriolis showed me that you can get a little too limited. 5e D&D is definitely in the goldilocks range for me.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I'd be quite happy with no skills against a DC or, even better, roll under.

When you have a Background proficiency or a Culture proficiency (replace Language for culture prof, meaning you know the language and the general history and etiquette of that culture) and it is relevant in a situation, you get to add your PB to the roll. Expertise gives you advantage when using a specific Background or Culture proficiency. When you gain an ASI, you can add a new Background or Culture prof to your list.

 

[Blue]

Absolutely fewer skills. I despise systems with large amount of close-to-each-other skills. When To be an action hero I need to pick separate skills for swimming, jumping, climbing, and then realizing when it comes up in an adventure I can't throw well because that yet another skill it just breaks immersion and makes me unhappy to be playing that system. Example from Call of Cthulhu 7th edition, a modern RPG.

If too realize trope A takes becoming good in four different skills, and trope B takes six different skills not because the trope in harder but because one way the skills are divided up more - that's a failure.

If the skills are so specific that I can invest in a skill that comes up regularly in play, and a skill that comes up once every three months of play, I will consider the second one a trap.

If the skills are too narrow that a DM may favor some more than other ("can I use Charm?", "no, this is persuasion") or the D&D 5e "roll perceptions" coming up much more than "roll investigation" with some so that there isn't consistency because too many could apply.

No, please give me the most general skills. I want a "High Society" skill that, with the appropriate ability to modify it, can handle everything from heraldry to courtesy and handling yourself to knowledge about current or historical figures. Let's make sure my character knows what they heck they know and don't miss something because it was splintered across too many skills.

 

[Scott Christian]

An option for they have the perfect number now (5e) would have been nice.

 

[Maxperson]

Do you prefer the game to have a huge amount of Skills or a small amount of Skills?

An example of a few Skills would be combining Jump; Swim; Climb into Athletics.

An example of a lot of Skills would be dividing Athletics into Jumping; Swimming; Climbing; Running, etc.

If a game has more Skills for your character to learn, such as Fishing; Hunting; Farming; Animal Husbandry, etc, does that effect your interest in the game?

I prefer more. A good swimmer is generally not going to be an equally good jumper and climber. The merging doesn't make sense to me. I understand why it was done, but it makes the game less realistic to me. Characters should also have strengths and weaknesses. It's okay to climb well, but not swim well.

 

[cbwjm]

I think the current set up is good, though maybe a couple more skills would be useful. Typically though you can twist a skill for a certain topic if there isn't a direct correlation.

I'd like to see more done with skills, however. I think if each skill had a number of specialisations (essentially all of those things the skill is used for) and expertise applied to those specialisations it would make for a more interesting skill system. Then I'd open up expertise a lot more with rogues and bards gaining additional expertise slots over and above what other classes get.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

Compared to 5E, I'd say a few more. I miss skills like Culture, and Streetwise from 4E. But I would absolutely not explode Athletics into Running, Jumping and swimming.

On a side note, it blew my mind how Symbaroum doesn't have skills. It's one of the pieces I took for granted because of the games I played before. But there's a certain elegance to it.

But what I'd take more of is pushing your skills forward. It's really boring that in 5E most of your skills are set at first level and change very little except feats (which are optional) and your ability modifiers moving up. One of the few parts of Starfinder that I've enjoyed was seeing my players get skill points every level and invest them as they seemed fit.

 

[MGibster]

If a game has more Skills for your character to learn, such as Fishing; Hunting; Farming; Animal Husbandry, etc, does that effect your interest in the game?

I run a lot of different types of games. High fantasy, low fantasy, gritty noir horror, the holy trinity of punk that is cyberpunk, splatterpunk, & steampunk, personal horror, science fiction, and other odds & ends. Most, and by most I mean none, of my games involve caring for or selectively breeding farm animals. There is no place for Animal Husbandry in the majority of my games.

I'd prefer a short list of skills that see regular use rather than an exhaustive list with skills that rarely see any use.

 

[MGibster]

I prefer more. A good swimmer is generally not going to be an equally good jumper and climber. The merging doesn't make sense to me. I understand why it was done, but it makes the game less realistic to me. Characters should also have strengths and weaknesses. It's okay to climb well, but not swim well.

Sure, but the same is true for a skill like History, Religion, or even Nature. Realistically, most historians specialize and being good at American history doesn't mean you know jack squat about Chinese history. But in most games just having a History means you're equally good at all histories.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Fewer. Like how we played 1e. Everything that wasn’t resolved via roleplay was roll under relevant attribute. Possible bonus for background or training. Keep it simple