Gundark
Explorer
As Mike promised here is his L&L on skills
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130916
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130916
D&D 5E L&L Sept 16th . The Latest on Skills
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
Plaguescarred
Hero
I'm glad Skills remain a bonus benefiting ability based task resolution rather than be a task based resolution itself. I also prefer Skill bonus over Skill die so all good here. While the layout of Ability score (Skill) format is nice, i preferred when Skills were untied to ability scores. I'm good with Skill proficiency bonus but i fear the Expert bonus riding on top will be too much but we'll wait and see how it pan out. I also am okay with a condensed Skills list but i prefered bigger more elaborate one.
Last edited:
The Myopic Sniper
Hero
I had been all for removing skills, but thought the ability/expertise implementation in the last packet was clunky and harder in actual play than skills. I could live with what is outlined in this L&L. Are skills this going to show up in basic or is this a core feature?
LightPhoenix
First Post
I feel like we've come around full circle almost to where we were when we first started playtesting. That is, skills apply a bonus to any checks that are related to them. The only difference is the use of narrowly defined skills versus broadly defined skills (or rather, skill sets), and that's even called out as an optional system. Personally, I don't think that the narrow and broad systems can't coexist either. Someone with the broad skill Sailor might apply their bonus to climbing rigging, but climbing a cliff face is another matter entirely. Ordinarily I'd be a little wary of the removal of Profession to be replaced with tool proficiency. However, Blacksmith can simply be a broad skill that applies to anything, so I think it's less of an issue.
Li Shenron
Legend
It seems fine to me, not really innovative and not going to be my favourite version of skills, but generally ok.
Now, if they removed "Search" and let "Perception" absorb it, then it would be even better.
And now that skills are once again mandatory, rewrite the nonsense Human race once and for all so that it grants a mix of skills, proficiencies and feats of choice (you can leave a "+1 to two ability scores" in place of the feat as an option).
Now, if they removed "Search" and let "Perception" absorb it, then it would be even better.
And now that skills are once again mandatory, rewrite the nonsense Human race once and for all so that it grants a mix of skills, proficiencies and feats of choice (you can leave a "+1 to two ability scores" in place of the feat as an option).
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
I like pretty much everything they're doing with skills, particularly the condensed skill list and the fact that you can use different abilities with skills (like the example of using a wisdom check with athletics to assess the difficulty of climbing a cliff. I'm also glad that they're adjusting the DCs so that skills are only needed to accomplish the most difficult of tasks.
There are really only a couple things I dislike. First, I don't like the whole proficiency thing replacing crafts. They made professions part of backgrounds, why not just do the same thing with crafts? Second, I don't like the idea that only certain classes, such as rogues, can become experts in a skill and get +5 more to their skills than other classes do. I think any class should be able to be an expert at certain things. A rogue might have an advantage in skills like stealth, while a wizard would be better at arcana. I also dislike the search skill, which IMO should be part of perception, but it's not a huge deal. I'm just glad they have perception instead of listen and spot!
I do admit to being a bit sad to see the skill die go, but it's for the best. The double randomness was unsettling to a lot of people and it was a bit odd. Having a number bonus for skills like everything else, such as attack bonuses, is more consistent.
There are really only a couple things I dislike. First, I don't like the whole proficiency thing replacing crafts. They made professions part of backgrounds, why not just do the same thing with crafts? Second, I don't like the idea that only certain classes, such as rogues, can become experts in a skill and get +5 more to their skills than other classes do. I think any class should be able to be an expert at certain things. A rogue might have an advantage in skills like stealth, while a wizard would be better at arcana. I also dislike the search skill, which IMO should be part of perception, but it's not a huge deal. I'm just glad they have perception instead of listen and spot!
I do admit to being a bit sad to see the skill die go, but it's for the best. The double randomness was unsettling to a lot of people and it was a bit odd. Having a number bonus for skills like everything else, such as attack bonuses, is more consistent.
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
Agreed.
As for the mandatory skills, I'm glad that they're doing this. Making skills entirely optional would have just created problems (like having to have different DCs for groups that use skills and those who don't). Besides, as he says, if you don't like skills, they're pretty easy to ignore.
Also, I noticed that History is a skill. I wonder what this means for fields of lore? Are they getting rid of them?
babomb
First Post
Yes. It's pretty easy to miss, but tucked into the paragraph right before the list of skills it says:
Arcana, Nature, and Religion are the other lore skills.
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
Good catch.
While I didn't really like the whole +10 lore thing, I'll miss some of the lore skills, like folklore. I thought they were a flavorful addition to the backgrounds.
Li Shenron
Legend
They are moving them back to being skills. I prefer it over separating Lores from Skills because they meant siloing i.e. everyone had to have exactly 2 fields of lore. This was boring, it could be seen positively as an added treat ("even your streetwise rogue or savage barbarian has some lores, consider it a bonus") but for me it was a restriction in the sense that I had to have 2 lores even if I wanted a low-education character. Because of this, folklore was going to be quite the default for everyone who wasn't interested in a knowledged PC, but then it meant that sages types who needed to "spend" those precious 2 lores (or 3 with class bonus lore) in characterizing fields, would end up knowing less folklore than the other types. I much, much prefer lores to be skills, so when I want a knowledge PC I take just the lores I want and pay by giving up non-lore skills, and viceversa.
Furthermore, backgrounds can once again grant skills, although since the list is short then they clearly won't grant 4 of them. Most likely a background will grant a mix of 2-3 skills & proficiencies. Not being limited to lores means they have a little bit more freedom in designing interesting backgrounds.
My take is that Folklore is actually now subsumed by History. But if that's not the case or if it doesn't feel right, let's not forget that the list of skills is never really static and closed. There is always room for more skills, we'll probably also get some described in supplements, and of course custom skills can easily be created by your own group. Lores are the easiest type of skills to be multiplied!
