Has the skill list gone in the wrong direction?

[Crazy Jerome]

ruth be told... I personally would prefer a much more open ability check / Background system and a rule that says a DM can say a specific task is unable to be tried without a Background he feels appropriate for it... than to just create another list of 15 "things" that all PCs can be "trained" in, and thus only those who are trained can attempt the exceedingly small list of "trained-only" tasks the game has. I'm voting for DM agency to make rulings, rather than needing the game to make every ruling in every obscure situation.

That's why I said the skill list provided by the game is a default, along with instructions about changing it for each campaign. Because while there are all kinds of niche skills that people may want to restrict, every campaign (and group) is different. Consider play instrument, swimming, crafts, specialized trading, "use magic device," etc. And then some people will want to restrict lockpicking, find/disable traps, "spellcraft," "combat riding," etc.

I guess it wasn't clear since I didn't provide a list, but the point was to remove the burden of background skills explaining how "someone gets a lot better at this broad thing which we provide exhaustive rules on" -- and replace it with "background skills note the niche things you can do that not everyone can." If a particular campaign takes all the "adventuring stuff" out of the restricted list, but still uses skills, then your skill picks become mostly about color--your rogue can play the bagpipes, for some strange reason. If the group makes that decision, then that's a good thing.

There is a logic problem in that idea--that now the skills aren't really tied all that closely to background. But if a group has decided to alter the required skill list, then presumably they'd want to alter the backgrounds a bit too. Background of "thief" should mean something different mechanically in a campaign where everyone can pick locks versus a campaign where only those with the skill can.