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

[overgeeked]

No, it was not bad form. It was an example, a valid example with the system. You decided to attack a word choice I made for describing a valid character in the system instead fo actually engaging what this post is about, and then you dare to try to turn this back on me because I didn't go into a high level of detail of the type of game we were playing in the example.

You still aren't engaging about few or many skills. You are threadcrapping now with suggestions for different systems to do something for an example, without even discussing what the example was about - too many fragmented skills. Please stop trying to show how smart you are, or how it's definitely not your fault, and instead contribute to the topic of the thread about number of skills.

You're complaining about a mismatch in the system (and skills) in the game you're using and the style of game you wanted to play. You want to use a car to move your house, that's on you. Trucks do a better job. If you insist on using a car to do a truck's job, that's on you. Someone pointing out that trucks are better for that job isn't an attack on you and it certainly doesn't make them a jerk. You have a problem and want to complain about it, not actually do anything to solve the problem. Got it.

 

[tetrasodium]

Just honing in here on the part I bolded: it seems we already have that in 5e for ability checks. A DM can rule that a particular task requires proficiency in a particular skill - any non-proficient PC trying it will autofail.

IME trying to force those into play at the table is an uphill battle with how o5e & its tools are written

• For example...
  
  Spoiler: take the character sheet

  
  Players are going to ill in every one of those ___ lines with the stat mod & proficiency bonus added as they apply
• ,Go on dndbeyond & roll the wisdom (stealth) or de(medicine check with a character... Imagine a table full of players & a gm staring at you fiddling fruitlessly with your phone flipping between sections of a sheet trying to do a thing it probably shouldn't have done to begin with & then trying to gather the individual parts needed to do it manually from different screens of your sheet...
• Look at page 175-180 in the phb where the "Using Each Ability" section resides... First take note of how short the blurb is on the abilities themselves then second notice how basically every skill listed describes how it works for DefaultAbility(skill)

For all the show of changing from skill checks to "Ability checks" the only real support for it is in a sidebar that lists them as "Variant:Skills With Different Abilities" and anywhere it can be done things are setup to reinforce skill checks with a default ability.

Even trying to take the examples pf dex(medicine) & wis(stealth) that I mentioned... I have an idea what they are,. do you?.... It turns into an unknowable calvinball with the blind leading the blind

 

[delericho]

Either's fine by me. Unfortunately, though, 5e seems to have hit on exactly the wrong number.

 

[Maxperson]

I prefer less skills, but what skills are there is more important than how many there are of them.

I'd get rid of Perception, as it's a stupid skill, and:

• Combine Investigation and Insight into one

Investigation and insight are almost polar opposite skills. Investigation is logical and calculated, and insight is intuitive. It's why they use different abilities. Like oil and water, they don't combine well.

 

[Maxperson]

I may be in the unpopular opinion here, but:

I want lots of skills!

I love skills!

I love lots of skills and lots of points to put into those skills, and lots of things to do with those skills!

In my dream D&D, a character would invest in something like Athletics, which would then give them a base proficiency in things like Climb, Balance, Throw, Lift... Then they could invest further in those subskills.

Oooo, then the skills have actual effects in combat! Like thrown weapons can be thrown further by characters with a high Throw Skill!

Almost 40% of us want more skills, so the opinion is not unpopular, even if it is the minority opinion.

 

[Maxperson]

Just honing in here on the part I bolded: it seems we already have that in 5e for ability checks. A DM can rule that a particular task requires proficiency in a particular skill - any non-proficient PC trying it will autofail.

I do that. Many rolls of my are only for those with proficiency. Even when I do allow rolls for those non-proficient, I usually up the DC by 5 for them. The exception is for rolls where the knowledge is so easy that just about everyone will know it.(DCs of 5 or 10), then I just let everyone roll and add whatever their numbers are.

 

[schneeland]

If we are talking specifically about D&D:
The general number of skills in D&D5 is fine, a) I'm not sure if I like how they are cut, and b) with broad skills like "Athletics", attributes feel vestigial and should rather be factored into a more refined skill system. Or dropped completely and being skilled just gives you advantage on your attribute roll or something like that.

If we are a bit broader:
Year Zero systems with their 4 attributes and 12-16 skills work quite well for me, as does Broken Compass (6 attributes/areas of expertise, 18 skills); I'm fine with mostly skill-less systems like DCC, too, though.

 

[Greg K]

If you want recs for games / systems that do pulp better than CoC, try one of these. Achtung! Cthulhu, the new 2d20 one. Adventure! Amazing Adventures. Atomic Robo RPG, Fate Core, Fate Accelerated, Fate Condensed. FGU Daredevils. GURPS. Hollow Earth Expedition. Justice Inc. Mercenaries, Spies & Private Eyes. Pulp HERO, the single best pulp sourcebook even if you don't use the system. Pulp Heroes d20, from Polyhedron (Jan 2002). Rocket Age. Rocketship Empires. Savage Worlds. Space 1889. Thrilling Tales. Two-Fisted Tales. Pulp gaming is very much my jam.

For Savage Worlds pulp, I would go with Thrilling Tales 2e (Adamant Entertainment). For d20 Modern pulp, I would go with the original version of Thrilling Tales (Adamant Entertainment). They are similar to Pulp Hero in topics

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Either's fine by me. Unfortunately, though, 5e seems to have hit on exactly the wrong number.

Say more… what number would be better for 5e and why?

 

[Staffan]

I do that. Many rolls of my are only for those with proficiency. Even when I do allow rolls for those non-proficient, I usually up the DC by 5 for them. The exception is for rolls where the knowledge is so easy that just about everyone will know it.(DCs of 5 or 10), then I just let everyone roll and add whatever their numbers are.

That's pretty much the opposite of how 5e is intended to work. 5e doesn't really have skill checks. It just has ability checks, some of which can get a bonus if you have the right proficiency. PCs are intended to be broadly competent at things. That's why it's always written as an "Intelligence (History) check" and not a "History check" – it's an Intelligence check where you might get a bonus if you've studied History.

I'd be more inclined to do the reverse, and have someone with the right proficiency just succeed. You have proficiency in Arcana? You know that's a dragon and you're pretty sure the green ones breathe poison gas. If you don't, you get to roll for it.