D&D (2024) No Skills

[UngeheuerLich]

While I'm not a fan of the 5e skill system as it stands, I'm not in favour of getting rid of it either - characters should have scope for being good at one or two things that you wouldn't expect.

The revision I'd like to see:

Remove the Perform skill and the various musical instrument tool proficiencies. Instead introduce a new category of Performance proficiencies (including those instruments, but also things like dance, song, oratory...). Characters then pick up a number of these, possibly with Bards getting them all.

Remove Deception, Persuasion, and Intimidate skills. Instead introduce a new category of Social proficiencies, each relating to a category of people (nobles, peasants, the military, criminals...). Characters then pick up a number of these - this has the effect of spreading the role of "face" among the party, instead of the high-Cha skilled person dominating the Interaction pillar.

Combine Perception and Investigation into a single skill, and rename it to Senses.

Roll those aspects of Nature dealing with animals into Animal Handling, and the rest into Survival. The distinction isn't really enough to matter.

Add a skill dealing with things like heraldry, social structures, and the like. I think much of this is supposed to fit under History, but that has always felt like a poor fit.

Beef up Medicine so that it's actually worth taking. My suggestion would be that successful use allows the recipient to spend a Hit Die (refresh on Short Rest).

Reintroduce Passive Insight.

Please no passive perception and no passive insight. Just remove them in favour of passive defenses.

This together with the grapple change would pave the way to play a game without skills.

 

[Reynard]

While I'm not a fan of the 5e skill system as it stands, I'm not in favour of getting rid of it either - characters should have scope for being good at one or two things that you wouldn't expect.

The revision I'd like to see:

Remove the Perform skill and the various musical instrument tool proficiencies. Instead introduce a new category of Performance proficiencies (including those instruments, but also things like dance, song, oratory...). Characters then pick up a number of these, possibly with Bards getting them all.

Remove Deception, Persuasion, and Intimidate skills. Instead introduce a new category of Social proficiencies, each relating to a category of people (nobles, peasants, the military, criminals...). Characters then pick up a number of these - this has the effect of spreading the role of "face" among the party, instead of the high-Cha skilled person dominating the Interaction pillar.

Combine Perception and Investigation into a single skill, and rename it to Senses.

Roll those aspects of Nature dealing with animals into Animal Handling, and the rest into Survival. The distinction isn't really enough to matter.

Add a skill dealing with things like heraldry, social structures, and the like. I think much of this is supposed to fit under History, but that has always felt like a poor fit.

Beef up Medicine so that it's actually worth taking. My suggestion would be that successful use allows the recipient to spend a Hit Die (refresh on Short Rest).

Reintroduce Passive Insight.

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning or benefit in making Perform more granular but making Perception less so.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

One should just pull the trigger and drop skills entirely. When you are doing a thing that requires a check, your get proficiency if your race, heritage, culture, background, or class says you should for that specific thing. The skill system is already so loose and subject to fiat it isn't actually that big of a change -- and it has the benefit of making characters good at the things they should be good at. The half-baked skill system is probably my least favorite thing in 5E, especially compared to 3.x/PF. Just dump it and make it about who the character is.

I agree though I think it requires an agreeable and realistic bunch of players to play this way. Which honestly you ideally have, but with stuff like organised player or playing with strangers you don't necessarily have.

 

[Willie the Duck]

One should just pull the trigger and drop skills entirely. When you are doing a thing that requires a check, your get proficiency if your race, heritage, culture, background, or class says you should for that specific thing. The skill system is already so loose and subject to fiat it isn't actually that big of a change -- and it has the benefit of making characters good at the things they should be good at. The half-baked skill system is probably my least favorite thing in 5E, especially compared to 3.x/PF. Just dump it and make it about who the character is.

I think Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea works under that setup -- you have class and background and are 'proficient' in any task that such a character would have (ex: former town guard might have perception, intimidation, and carousing-like abilities).

Honestly, 3.x/PF* to me always seems like... I don't want to be too disparaging, but kinda 'a pretense of being different (from a 5e-like situation), but only at the margins' (but only slightly, if that's a thing). They give hard, solid, rigorous (potentially bad**) numbers for things like how high you can jump, how hard it is to climb a wet, rough cliff face with handholds, how long it takes to craft an item, etc. They don't really do any better, however, in creating or helping resolve complex non-magic/non-spell tasks like hiring retainers; do things with wilderness travel other than boolean lost?-Y/N, can track?-Y/N, and movement speed; planning the construction of a castle; determining the challenge a hedge maze will be for the PCs; chase scenes; or adjudicating clue-finding in a mystery. It's really those more complex scenarios and systems which would make the skill section of the game an equal partner to spells and combat, and honestly I don't think any of the D&Ds/-alikes really have gone very far into that (admittedly really challenging to do well) morass.
*v.1; perhaps 2e has changed this
**I find the numbers not to be great great, IMO, but that's mostly a side-issue in how they interact with magic items and compared to solving problems with spells instead. The message I got from 3e's skills system was 'being a high-int 8 SP/level class will never be as awesome as having magic items which give you pluses in all your important skills, and either way the party wizard will probably have a more reliable solution.

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning or benefit in making Perform more granular but making Perception less so.

I suspect the (arguable) point is that you can find people who are good at violin and dance but not singing or tuba, but few people who are good at noticing just one kind of thing around them. Personally, I think being on active watch vs. specifically searching for a thing are distinct abilities, although exactly how they are split out in 5e doesn't seem particularly intuitive.

 

[delericho]

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning or benefit in making Perform more granular but making Perception less so.

Part of the issue here is the oddity of skill vs tool proficiencies here - it feels like each instrument should be its own tool proficiency, but that creates an odd overlap with the Perform skill.

But the one advantage is that (at present at least) it's possible to learn a specific tool proficiency with downtime, while picking up a skill isn't currently supported. Splitting up Perform into a more granular form would allow characters to train in those aspects.

All that said, I'd be good with them dropping the tools and rolling everything into a Perform skill. I just can't see them going that way.

 

[Yaarel]

@delericho

Remove the Perform skill and the various musical instrument tool proficiencies. Instead introduce a new category of Performance proficiencies (including those instruments, but also things like dance, song, oratory...). Characters then pick up a number of these, possibly with Bards getting them all.

I already do this now within rules: use Performance to represent the esthetic appeal. I often require two skill checks, one for esthetic beauty and one for technical skill. For example, an athletics check for a dance jump, or sleight of hand for a wellcrafted item.

I agree the artistic proficiencies, like a musical instrument, are currently a bit too all or nothing.

Remove Deception.

Deception is important but it must be an Intelligence check. (Not Charisma.) Deception includes technical forgeries, sounding knowledgeable to someone who is knowledgeable, keeping details consistent, and so on. It must be Intelligence.

Persuasion, and Intimidate skills.

Possibly, Persuasion and Intimidation are the same thing. But it is impossible to make an intimidation check, unless the player exploits a CREDIBLE threat. If someone is visually strong, threatening to attack someone can be credible. If someone is a lawyer, threatening to sue someone can be credible. It has to be some kind of threat. It is the threat itself that determines an intimidation check.

Instead introduce a new category of Social proficiencies, each relating to a category of people (nobles, peasants, the military, criminals...). Characters then pick up a number of these - this has the effect of spreading the role of "face" among the party, instead of the high-Cha skilled person dominating the Interaction pillar.

The DMs Guide mentions using ones background for ability proficiencies. I havent used this variant, so cant really comment.

Combine Perception and Investigation into a single skill, and rename it to Senses.

Reintroduce Passive Insight.

Better yet. There are eight ability scores.

Physical abilities:
Strength and Constitution
Dexterity and ATHLETICS

Mental Abilities:
Intelligence and PERCEPTION
Charisma and Wisdom

Perception is the saving throw versus hidden creatures, illusions, and so on. To make a find hidden skill check, add ones own Stealth proficiency to the check. Knowing how to hide well includes knowing what to look for when others are hiding.

Roll those aspects of Nature dealing with animals into Animal Handling, and the rest into Survival. The distinction isn't really enough to matter.

I use Nature for the four elements and physical sciences generally. Basically, it is alchemy, but includes astronomy and structural engineering, metalwork, and so on.

Add a skill dealing with things like heraldry, social structures, and the like. I think much of this is supposed to fit under History, but that has always felt like a poor fit.

I use History for any human science, even language comprehension checks.

Beef up Medicine so that it's actually worth taking. My suggestion would be that successful use allows the recipient to spend a Hit Die (refresh on Short Rest).

Sounds good.

I also let characters use medicine to concoct poisons, if they can acquire the relevant ingredients.

Sometimes medicine can identify an anatomical weakness.

I treat "animal handling" as if a kind of tool proficiency, for vehicle, special training, and anything relating to a pet.

 

[MoonSong]

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning or benefit in making Perform more granular but making Perception less so.

In fact If anything, I'd break up Perception so it wasn't as much of a must-take.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

One should just pull the trigger and drop skills entirely.

I don't even have any good skills. You know like nunchuck skills, bow hunting skills, computer hacking skills. Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills!

I mean, I think that there is certainly a correlation between the heightened social status of TTRPGers and the inclusion of mad skillz in D&D.

 

[Li Shenron]

When you are doing a thing that requires a check, your get proficiency if your race, heritage, culture, background, or class says you should for that specific thing.

How specific?

There is already an optional rule in the DMG for Background Proficiency. That's generic, not specific, because it is very open-ended to what kind of skill check the proficiency bonus should apply to. It should be easy to suggest a similar optional rule for Class (replacing the fixed 2-4 proficiencies) and maybe only a bit more difficult for Race (meaning, it's even more open ended, but conceivably a Wood Elf could have the bonus on anything related to natural stuff, a High Elf on anything related to magical stuff, a Dwarf on anything related to stone and metals and so on).

Otherwise, an obviously terrible idea to make this the only option that everyone must follow.

 

[Reynard]

How specific?

There is already an optional rule in the DMG for Background Proficiency. That's generic, not specific, because it is very open-ended to what kind of skill check the proficiency bonus should apply to. It should be easy to suggest a similar optional rule for Class (replacing the fixed 2-4 proficiencies) and maybe only a bit more difficult for Race (meaning, it's even more open ended, but conceivably a Wood Elf could have the bonus on anything related to natural stuff, a High Elf on anything related to magical stuff, a Dwarf on anything related to stone and metals and so on).

Otherwise, an obviously terrible idea to make this the only option that everyone must follow.

Specific situation. As in, the determination of whether proficiency applies is based on the circumstances at the moment. Obviously a lot of things will be similar situations and will eventually become rote.