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

[Maxperson]

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 understand that, but I'm not really down with some of the oversimplification that is 5e. I run skills like that because it makes more sense to run them that way than the simplified way. Everybody being able to know or do everything competently isn't my cup of tea. Heck, even tea isn't my cup of tea. Foul, foul beverage.

 

[Steampunkette]

I like more skills... but also broadly applicable skills.

So no, I don't want Climb/Jump/Swim when Athletics can exist, but I would like -more- skill types.

How about a specific Monster Lore skill that is separate from the various Knowledge Skills that can be used to learn about monsters, but applies -specifically- to Monsters, their weaknesses, legends about them, and how much their various pelts and magical elements are worth? Sure you could just take 3-4 other skills for that one function, but the same could be said about Deception, Persuasion, and Intimidation...

Y'know? Stuff that allows for different character structures, narratively speaking.

 

[CubicsRube]

I like more skills... but also broadly applicable skills.

So no, I don't want Climb/Jump/Swim when Athletics can exist, but I would like -more- skill types.

How about a specific Monster Lore skill that is separate from the various Knowledge Skills that can be used to learn about monsters, but applies -specifically- to Monsters, their weaknesses, legends about them, and how much their various pelts and magical elements are worth? Sure you could just take 3-4 other skills for that one function, but the same could be said about Deception, Persuasion, and Intimidation...

Y'know? Stuff that allows for different character structures, narratively speaking.

The Witcher TRPG does this. Each monster entry has a common lore DC which reveals some superstitions and general knowledge of the monster in question, and there is a separate paragraph with a Monster Lore DC (which is a witcher class skill) which talks about the creatures typical behaviours, where they're found, any particular weaknesses, etc.

It's a really cool feature I think.

 

[Azzy]

I'd prefer a few more skills (especially a couple more Knowledge skills), with Tool Proficiencies turned into skills as well. Also, have the ability to gain more Skill Proficiencies/Languages baked into the leveling process like 1e/2e's NWPs.

 

[d24454_modern]

D&D needs fewer skills. I'd be happy with a simple proficiency check based on ability score, not unlike Castles & Crusades. Give classes special abilities that make them better at doing class-related things.

I feel like that would be too restrictive. Using skills allowed for characters with the exact same class to be differentiated more.

 

[cbwjm]

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.

This is what I do, it's a nice bonus for people proficient in the skill, even if cleric with 10 intelligence only has a final religion skill of +2, they still know a lot more than someone without, allowing them to just know things without requiring a roll. I think I normally do this for anything with a DC of 10 or less but I'm probably a little inconsistent with how I do it.

 

[loverdrive]

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.

Reading people seems quite logical and calculated to me.

 

[Maxperson]

Reading people seems quite logical and calculated to me.

It's used for more than reading people, and a lot of reading people is intuition. Hell, the word insight itself definitionally deals with deep intuitive understandings.

 

[loverdrive]

It's used for more than reading people, and a lot of reading people is intuition. Hell, the word insight itself definitionally deals with deep intuitive understandings.

Well, you can Study someone using cold, calculated analysis, thus rolling Intelligence (Study) check, or you can rely on your intuition, experience and street smarts and make a Wisdom (Study) check.

Regardless, someone who is good at spotting little details and incongruences while investigating a room should also be good at spotting little details and incongruences while talking to someone.

 

[Maxperson]

Regardless, someone who is good at spotting little details and incongruences while investigating a room should also be good at spotting little details and incongruences while talking to someone.

And yet more often than not, they aren't. I've known many, many smart, detailed people(good at investigation) that couldn't read a stump(read people) and very few who could.