D&D 5E Getting rid of bad skill proficiencies

[DEFCON 1]

I have no issue with condensing, expanding or changing the list of skills in the game. Or indeed from campaign to campaign. And I also have no issue with turning some skills into tool proficiencies or tool proficiencies into skills.

I myself usually do it because I use the Variable Ability Score variant rule and thus the need for two skills when one skill with a n alternate ability score can suffice is gone. I don't use Sleight of Hand, I use Dexterity (Deception). I don't use Intimidation, I use Strength (Persuasion). I don't use Animal Handling, I use Wisdom (Nature). I don't use Acrobatics, I use Dexterity (Athletics). I don't use Medicine, I use Intelligence (Survival).

This also then allows me to add skills (or more to the point broad subjects of information) that I think some campaigns find useful. So in Eberron I added Commerce, Warfare, and Mechanics as three new skills to be proficient in, and depending on what you were doing any of the six ability scores could apply. Trying to appraise that gem? Intelligence (Commerce). Haggling over the price of said gem? Charisma (Commerce). Remembering events during the Last War would be Intelligence (Warfare) while confirming tactics in a battle plan would be Wisdom (Warfare) and being able to get that trebuchet loaded up quickly would be Strength (Warfare).

Whatever is going to work best for the game and be the most applicable is what I would go with. Because when I look at my Pathfinder character I have and see that I have had to put points in both the skills of Diplomacy and Profession: Diplomat... I realize just how stupid and useless some skills and skill lists can be.

 

[Don Durito]

Sometimes I'm tempted to just dump all the social skills and then just give all PCs a proficient Charisma save DC.

That way I can just make an appropriate save for the person they're talking to if a roll seems necessary.

 

[Istbor]

Is this an argument for using Strength for Intimidate or for not having to roll the dice in situations where there is no need for a die roll?

In my opinion, the second part of your question should always be remembered. If there isn't a significant chance it could fail, no check should be called for. You did it. You're intimidating to this farmer.

So more of an argument that Intimidate shouldn't be the sole property of Charisma. Should someone be able to intimidate using just their charisma, their force of will? Absolutely. I only disagree that someone sufficiently skillful in the arcane, dexterous, or brutish arts (or whatever) should be shoe-horned into having to rely upon their charisma to sell it and successfully intimidate.

 

[nevin]

Maybe they're all bad skills? Just use the ability score? Or don't roll at all if it's not necessary?

As a DM I miss the days of just rolling on whatever I thought was the appropriate ability score. Simple quick nothing to look up.

 

[Don Durito]

So more of an argument that Intimidate shouldn't be the sole property of Charisma. Should someone be able to intimidate using just their charisma, their force of will? Absolutely. I only disagree that someone sufficiently skillful in the arcane, dexterous, or brutish arts (or whatever) should be shoe-horned into having to rely upon their charisma to sell it and successfully intimidate.

See this to me suggests rather that intimidating shouldn't be the sole province of the intimidate skill. If the rogue want's to make an impressive display of his knife skill he could roll Dex(weapon proficiency), if he's trying to do more than an impressive display of skill then it may edge into Cha (weapon proficiency). The problem is that Intimidate is an approach, not a skill.

But if you're looming over the goblin with you're axe you don't need to roll. If you're trying to convince the goblin that if it doesn't travel for a week back to the home of it's king and deliver your message exactly as you dictate it to him then you will track him down and kill him slowly, then that's a matter of force of personality if it's anything. You want the threat to stick even if you''re not looming over him.

Part of the issue is that people want their Fighters and Barbarians to be Charismatic even if they're not charismatic. Which is understandable - charisma is rarely a dump stat for the fictional characters people look to as models, but the game makes a cost of the good charisma overly high for some characters (especially Barbarians - a Fighter can actually get away with a decent Charisma).

Though I think there's an argument to be made for actually having these classes get free bonuses to Charisma as they level up. It's a good call back both to the games roots when they gained followers, and also reflects their growing confidence in their own skill.