Those are new DMs.
Once a DM thinks they know what they're doing They start ignoring all DM advice.
DM advice that you see on YouTube is mostly geared to... new DMs..
The 2014 DMG didn't have much advice on how to do things because it was geared to old DMs. It was just mostly lore, Magic item rules, conversion tables and conversion rules.
And the main complaint about the 2024 DMG it just doesn't have as many toolbox aspects as the old one because it focuses on teaching new DMs because veteran DMs don't want to be told what to do They just want the conversion rules and tables.
Remember Ginny D didn't read the 2014 DMG until the 2024 DMG came out.
How many YouTube videos are about pointing to stuff that's in the book that people complained about wanting that are in the book but they did not read.
Because once a DM thinks he knows how to DM most of them don't want to be told how to do anything else.
It's the books potentially saying "Intimidate is a skill. You have to create a reason why a PC would use Intimidate over Persuasion or Deception to balance the skills and let every PC roll in social situations sometimes." and...
would you mind elaborating for someone who's only properly been exposed to 5e mechanics how 5e's skill system resemble 4e's more than 3e's and why '5e culture of play and running 5e skills like they're 3e skills' is so detrimental to using them?
I'll work chronologically, as I find that the most effective way of explaining the relations and connections.
The 3e family (incl. PF1e) uses skill points, and what I'll call an "encyclopedic" bonus/penalty/DC system (more on that later). You may know what "skill points" means, but implementation matters. Each level in a given class gives a defined amount of "skill points" to buy skill ranks, up to char level+3 (just char level in PF1e, which simplified things a bit). Ranks cost 1 point if it is a "class skill"; all others are "cross-class", cost 2/rank, and have a lower cap. I'll be coming back to the points/level thing.
Thing is...3e had LOTS of skills. Like more than 40, if you recognize that "Knowledge" wasn't one skill, but rather ten, because you had to spend points on specific Knowledge specialties. I'll spoiler the full list of non-supplement-specific skills below.
Appraise
Balance
Bluff
Climb
Concentration
Craft*
Decipher Script
Diplomacy
Disable Device
Disguise
Escape Artist
Forgery
Gather Information
Handle Animal
Heal
Hide
Intimidate
Jump
Knowledge*
Listen
Move Silently
Open Lock
Perform
Profession*
Ride
Search
Sense Motive
Sleight of Hand
Speak Language*
Spellcraft
Spot
Survival
Swim
Tumble
Use Magic Device
Use Rope
*Craft, Profession, Knowledge, and Speak Language are each technically categories of skills, not singular skills. Craft and Profession were mostly fluff so few people invested in them unless it was as a qualification for something else, but Knowledge had (not joking) TEN different non-supplement-specific branches: Arcana, Architecture and engineering, Dungeoneering, Geography, History, Local (information about your general area), Nature, Nobility and royalty, Religion, and The Planes. All of these ALSO have synergy bonuses with various other skills, so they function as effectively ten different skills.
There were also, as noted, a few supplement-specific skills, several for psionics, a few more for various other things.
That's a HUGE list of skills, especially since few characters could ever max out more than 5 different skills, unless they were hyper-focused on Int. Fighters struggled to be good even at just general Being Strong things, because what we now call "Athletics" was split up into Climb, Jump, and Swim, while "Acrobatics" was Balance and Tumble and a couple other things, etc. As a result, Fighters and Barbarians (only getting 2 plus Int mod per level) often struggled, and even Rogues with a prodigious 6 might not be able to be both expert thieves (Bluff, Disable Device, Disguise, Hide, Move Silently, Open Lock, Sleight of Hand) and experts at "second-story work" (Climb, Escape Artist, Tumble, Use Rope). So we have the first twin problems: far, far too many hyper-specific skills, far too few skill points.
Now, the "encyclopedic" thing, my term. Every skill had extensive lists of bonuses, penalties, and DC modifiers. You had "synergy" bonuses for 5+ ranks in a related skill (e.g. K(Arcana) and Spellcraft), amongst many other types: circumstance, luck, alchemical, competence, enhancement, insight, racial, morale, size, etc., etc. And then reams of narrow, situational DC modifiers. Frex, Balance considered what you were doing, the width and condition and slipperiness of the surface, lighting conditions, and if it was flat or angled. Just trying to work out the base DC of a check could take multiple minutes. Hence, third problem: a veritable ocean of modifiers, far worse than 4e (and, of course, certainly worse than 5e.)
Fourth, the math wanted to have its cake and eat it too, but ended up buying the cake and not eating it. They wanted to both permit "organic" character growth AND reward optimization, and ended up doing neither. It proved to be a Red Queen's race. You usually needed full points just to be okay at expected checks; to get better at skills, you had to optimize. So a lightly-optimized character couldn't fail checks that would be tough for an "organic" character, while reasonable challenges for the former were outright impossible for the latter. Now add in that some skills had to challenge the whole party (e.g. sneaking around)...sometimes in multiple skills...and you see the fourth issue. The system tried to do everything, and failed.
The final problem came in how this taught people to play--and run. Skills weren't treated as flexible tools for improvisation. 3e DMs, in general, only allowed what was explicitly written out. You couldn't use Spellcraft to temporarily suspend a magic barrier to sneak through (a thing I personally did in a 4e game, with skills!) The rules didn't say it could work, so it couldn't. The text didn't say to do this, but it was implied by the "you can't do X unless you have a feat" + "you'll suck at X until you get ENOUGH feats/skill points/etc." design. Between the aforementioned huge complexity of modifiers and the risk of creating new headaches, most DMs just erred on the side of caution (and ease) and said no: "everything not permitted is forbidden."
So. That's where the 3e skill system got us. What did 4e do? Minigiant covered the details, but I'll give my own words.
4e condensed the skill list. Lots of frankly-useless skills (like Craft and Profession) were simply eliminated. "Knowledge" was eliminated, and its specializations condensed and turned into skills in their own right, e.g. Arcana is K(Arcana) and K(Planes) and some other stuff too. "Use Rope" gone, Athletics for doing anything...y'know, athletic, Acrobatics for anything bouncy or coordination-based, "Streetwise" absorbed K(Local) and Gather Information, etc. Instead of something like 42 different skills, 4e had 17, and every single one was CHUNKY, usable for a lot of purposes:
As part of that chunkiness, 4e skills were explicitly versatile. You weren't given an extensive list of what stuff they could do, because you and the DM were meant to decide that, and it was explicitly (and strongly) encouraged that the DM embrace a wide latitude. As noted above, you could use Arcana to influence or modify existing spell effects. You could use Religion to try to calm the spirits of the unquiet dead. You could use Survival to try to overawe someone with your unflagging vim and vigor. Etc. Skills were specifically meant to be broad, powerful things that could be leveraged creatively, without needing a list of predefined acceptable actions.
Further, the Red Queen's race was eliminated by the existence of the half-level bonus. That bonus meant that just general adventuring would ensure that you did get at least a little bit better, even at stuff you weren't focused on. This was intended to be shown by having the players occasionally "go back", level-wise, facing threats that weren't in fixed lock-step to their level, so they could SEE that the clankers (a friend's RP term for plate-wearing folks like Paladins) could actually sneak past town guards now and stuff like that. Unlike what basically every detractor will claim, 4e explicitly told DMs to throw stuff at their parties that WASN'T tied to their level, because having some real serious challenges now and then is exciting and interesting, and having some total cakewalk stuff on occasion shows them how much the PCs have grown.
Finally, again despite what many critics will tell you, 4e did in fact cut down on the amount, size, and types of bonuses--and, likewise, the often-ridiculous over-the-top DCs that would result from rigorously going through all the bazillion modifiers. It was still probably a little too much, but it was FAR better than 3e was on this issue. It also made "Trained" status much more central than it had been in 3e. Although such a distinction existed in 3e, it was mostly just "this skill is totally useless unless you're trained," while 4e, with its "you're either trained or you aren't" approach meant that most skills at least permitted some usage even to the untrained, but put the full breadth and power behind training, to encourage diversity in the group.
That brings us to 5e.
5e intended to keep most of this. Obviously it brought back the Red Queen's race (and even expanded that race to affect saving throws as well), but otherwise kept most of the 4e setup. The list was shuffled a bit, and they deleted Endurance for reasons I'll never know, but it's far more like 4e than 3e. Training has become "Proficiency", but it functions more or less the same. The descriptions of skills, while much more wishy-washy and noncommittal than 4e's were, are still much more akin to it than they are to the reams-and-reams-of-modifiers from 3e, and the advice, while often really poorly written, is at least much more supportive of the 4e approach than the 3e approach.
The problem is, almost everyone runs 5e skills as though it were 3e. You can't use skills for a thing unless the books explicitly say you can: Anything not permitted is forbidden. DCs are frequently stratospheric, to the point that only ultra-experts have a remotely reasonable chance of passing them--and low-level characters, even experts, often still have little to no chance of passing allegedly "typical" checks. (A DC 15 check at level 1 is not "normal," it is a stiff challenge for anyone that doesn't have BOTH proficiency AND a good stat modifier, and even then it's barely better than a coin flip!) And the skills themselves are not treated as chunky, powerful things that can do lots of interesting and useful things; they're treated as though they were highly narrow and specific, the way 3e skills were.
This results in a skill system that SHOULD have worked mostly like 4e's did, albeit with having to run in the Red Queen's race. Instead, the culture-of-play surrounding 5e has produced a situation nearly identical to 3e, even though this directly contradicts the books! I have never been able to figure out why it's like this. I hate it, I wish it weren't like this at all, I'm terribly grateful that my most recent 5e DM did not do this (and annoyed at most previous 5e DMs for doing it, even otherwise good ones!), and I'm hoping beyond hope that the changes in 5.5e manage to somehow snap people out of doing things this way...but I'm also pretty prepared for disappointment.
The 2014 DMG didn't have much advice on how to do things because it was geared to old DMs. It was just mostly lore, Magic item rules, conversion tables and conversion rules.
And the main complaint about the 2024 DMG it just doesn't have as many toolbox aspects as the old one because it focuses on teaching new DMs because veteran DMs don't want to be told what to do They just want the conversion rules and tables.
How many YouTube videos are about pointing to stuff that's in the book that people complained about wanting that are in the book but they did not read.
Because once a DM thinks he knows how to DM most of them don't want to be told how to do anything else.
Ginny D and a few other prominent D&D influencers and celebrities admitted to not reading the 2014 DMG.
There were many complaints and comments about 3E and 4E about expanding the abilities of skills in skill powers skill feats and other skill subsystems by veteran DMs.
The 2014 DMG omitted a lot of material and variants that many assumed would be in there because those subsystems would be conflicting to the styles and tones that some DMs would prefer to play. So WOTC just ommitted it.
The problem is, almost everyone runs 5e skills as though it were 3e. You can't use skills for a thing unless the books explicitly say you can: Anything not permitted is forbidden. DCs are frequently stratospheric, to the point that only ultra-experts have a remotely reasonable chance of passing them--and low-level characters, even experts, often still have little to no chance of passing allegedly "typical" checks. (A DC 15 check at level 1 is not "normal," it is a stiff challenge for anyone that doesn't have BOTH proficiency AND a good stat modifier, and even then it's barely better than a coin flip!) And the skills themselves are not treated as chunky, powerful things that can do lots of interesting and useful things; they're treated as though they were highly narrow and specific, the way 3e skills were.
This results in a skill system that SHOULD have worked mostly like 4e's did, albeit with having to run in the Red Queen's race. Instead, the culture-of-play surrounding 5e has produced a situation nearly identical to 3e, even though this directly contradicts the books! I have never been able to figure out why it's like this. I hate it, I wish it weren't like this at all, I'm terribly grateful that my most recent 5e DM did not do this (and annoyed at most previous 5e DMs for doing it, even otherwise good ones!), and I'm hoping beyond hope that the changes in 5.5e manage to somehow snap people out of doing things this way...but I'm also pretty prepared for disappointment.
I'd make it a feat choice. +1 to any one stat of preference, and you can pick one skill power for each point of Proficiency bonus you have. As your Proficiency score increases, you may pick additional skill powers. That's a feat that will be useful whether you take it at 4 or at 19.
My own experience, and the agreement of others who have seen the same pattern, and the advice I have encountered across the web, and the adventures I've read.
Maybe I and the several people I've spoken to who agreed about this have all had a weird and biased sample. But it's what I've seen, over and over and over again. I've had exactly two 5e DMs that didn't do this, and the first was technically a D&D Next DM, giving the playtest rules a shot.
If you want to quibble that anecdotes aren't data, fine. Whatever. We can only argue based on our experience. My experience is that the skill system in 5e sucks in large part because people use it in a really really sucky way that strongly resembles how skills were used in 3e or--more likely--PF1e. Because I strongly suspect that that's exactly what happened here. People who knew 3e very well defected to Pathfinder, and thus continued doing things exactly as they had, until 5e came along. They then switched back and ran it exactly as they had run 3e because the two systems are, in most ways, extremely similar if not damn-near identical. Skills are one of the few places where they differ....but I have not seen a shred of evidence that the culture-of-play for 5e is different from the 3e one when it comes to skills.
The fact that BG3 actually threw genuinely reasonable skill DCs at the player almost flabbergasted me. The vast majority of checks you make in the first area, the coast where you crashed? They're 10 or less. Some are as low as 5. Only one 5e DM I've ever had has done that--namely, Hussar.
This results in a skill system that SHOULD have worked mostly like 4e's did, albeit with having to run in the Red Queen's race. Instead, the culture-of-play surrounding 5e has produced a situation nearly identical to 3e, even though this directly contradicts the books! I have never been able to figure out why it's like this. I hate it, I wish it weren't like this at all, I'm terribly grateful that my most recent 5e DM did not do this (and annoyed at most previous 5e DMs for doing it, even otherwise good ones!), and I'm hoping beyond hope that the changes in 5.5e manage to somehow snap people out of doing things this way...but I'm also pretty prepared for disappointment.
Because the large percentage of the DMs for 5e when it first came out worth it 3e DMs.
AND
And as we now figured out many folks did not read the rules of 4e and ran it like 3E. So when they then upgrade it to finally they still ran it like 3E.
I mean, so many people complain about 4e skill challenges but when you ask them to explain what a skill challenge is they explain it wrong which proves that they never read the rules on skill challenges, ran them like 3e, and then ran into the problems the rules that they skipped would have solved.
