Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you prefer more or less Skills?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 8423076" data-attributes="member: 22424"><p>My view is that 5e has too many skills to really be lightweight (especially once the tool proficiencies are counted), but it also has both some awkward gaps and some overlaps (notably Athletics/Acrobatics, Perception/Investigation, and Perform/musical instrument proficiencies).</p><p></p><p>But the weakness that really bugs me are the Charisma-based skills. Because either a character has one (which means all interactions follow a fixed pattern) or they have more than one (in which case there's no meaningful difference); and also because in most parties one PC will specialise in these skills and so gain an effective monopoly on one pillar of the game. I'm inclined to think that it would be better if each (and every) PC was proficient in talking to some groups of people, with Expertise being granted in various social circumstances. That at least spreads the fun out a bit.</p><p></p><p>As for a better number...</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Six</strong>. One very general skill for each ability score.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Twelve. </strong>Each ability score is split into two (as in the really old Player Option days). A PC can be proficient in either side, but never both skills for any given ability.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Twenty-ish.</strong> About the same number as now, but a revised set.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Fifty-ish.</strong> Lots of very little skills, with an attempt to be comprehensive.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Undefined. </strong>PCs just declare any skill they want, with the details left intentionally vague (and no attempt to be comprehensive). They then apply their Prof Bonus if any of their 'skills' apply.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Undefined II.</strong> As above, but each PC only declares one or two - they're also assumed to be proficient in anything related to their race, class, or background.</li> </ul><p>Edit: I forgot an option:</p><p><strong>Zero: </strong>The game doesn't actually absolutely require them, of course...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="delericho, post: 8423076, member: 22424"] My view is that 5e has too many skills to really be lightweight (especially once the tool proficiencies are counted), but it also has both some awkward gaps and some overlaps (notably Athletics/Acrobatics, Perception/Investigation, and Perform/musical instrument proficiencies). But the weakness that really bugs me are the Charisma-based skills. Because either a character has one (which means all interactions follow a fixed pattern) or they have more than one (in which case there's no meaningful difference); and also because in most parties one PC will specialise in these skills and so gain an effective monopoly on one pillar of the game. I'm inclined to think that it would be better if each (and every) PC was proficient in talking to some groups of people, with Expertise being granted in various social circumstances. That at least spreads the fun out a bit. As for a better number... [LIST] [*][B]Six[/B]. One very general skill for each ability score. [*][B]Twelve. [/B]Each ability score is split into two (as in the really old Player Option days). A PC can be proficient in either side, but never both skills for any given ability. [*][B]Twenty-ish.[/B] About the same number as now, but a revised set. [*][B]Fifty-ish.[/B] Lots of very little skills, with an attempt to be comprehensive. [*][B]Undefined. [/B]PCs just declare any skill they want, with the details left intentionally vague (and no attempt to be comprehensive). They then apply their Prof Bonus if any of their 'skills' apply. [*][B]Undefined II.[/B] As above, but each PC only declares one or two - they're also assumed to be proficient in anything related to their race, class, or background. [/LIST] Edit: I forgot an option: [B]Zero: [/B]The game doesn't actually absolutely require them, of course... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you prefer more or less Skills?
Top