D&D 5E Required Class Skills

[Xeviat]

Does anyone else find it odd that certain classes don't require certain skills to be known? 4E had several classes where, instead of learning 3 skills from a list, for instance, they learned 2 skills and a fixed skill.

This came up because I was looking at the Ranger, and I found it odd that they get 2 stealth related class abilities but you could build a ranger without having proficiency in Stealth.

Taken a little further, Bards without Perform, Clerics without Religion, Druid's without Nature, and Wizards without Arcana feels a little weird too, but at least these classes don't have mechanics that require making checks with those skills.

What are your thoughts?

 

[jmartkdr]

I don't like the idea of requiring skills, because that limits options for no real gain - it's certainly not a balance issue if the wizard doesn't know arcana.

I do mind that a wizard can't get expertise in arcana, though. There's no reason a rogue should be better at that skill than a wizard can ever hope to be.

 

[Xeviat]

I don't like the idea of requiring skills, because that limits options for no real gain - it's certainly not a balance issue if the wizard doesn't know arcana.

I do mind that a wizard can't get expertise in arcana, though. There's no reason a rogue should be better at that skill than a wizard can ever hope to be.

That's kiiiiiiiiinda the reason I've been considering changing expertise in my games. I'm leaning heavily into liking this version:

Expertise
Choose two of your skill or tool proficiencies. Instead of adding your proficiency bonus to your ability modifier, use double your proficiency modifier and no ability modifier.

This would allow a rogue to shore up a weak stat, like a low strength or a low wisdom, and still be good at Athletics or Perception, without pushing the DCs out reliable range of other characters.

It would be a big change, though. But I think skill focused characters other than bards and rogues would feel less overshadowed by the bard and rogue in the skill department.

 

[bedir than]

Does anyone else find it odd that certain classes don't require certain skills to be known? 4E had several classes where, instead of learning 3 skills from a list, for instance, they learned 2 skills and a fixed skill.

This came up because I was looking at the Ranger, and I found it odd that they get 2 stealth related class abilities but you could build a ranger without having proficiency in Stealth.

Taken a little further, Bards without Perform, Clerics without Religion, Druid's without Nature, and Wizards without Arcana feels a little weird too, but at least these classes don't have mechanics that require making checks with those skills.

What are your thoughts?

Considering the general weakness/displeasure with the Ranger I think adding Stealth without losing anything makes sense!

 

[Xeviat]

Considering the general weakness/displeasure with the Ranger I think adding Stealth without losing anything makes sense!

Rogues get light armor, simple weapons, some ranged martial weapons (basically the ones they'd want to use, minus the longbow), thieves tools, and 4 skills.

Rangers get medium armor, shields, simple and martial weapons, and 3 skills.

I consider the trade of 1 skill for medium/shield proficiency to be mostly fair. Giving the Ranger stealth for free could be perfectly fine, even without reducing them to 2 skills.

Ranger is kind of worse than the others, because it feels like they should really have survival proficiency too (tracking is part of their favored enemy ability), and depending on how you interpret "when you make an intelligence or wisdom check related to your favored terrain", Perception and Nature.

It's kind of an interesting frustration of the Ranger to me. I don't feel like I have options in my skills. I feel like I need Athletics, Nature, Perception, Stealth, and Survival, which immediately limits the backgrounds I can pick and prevents me from having any other extra skills unless I'm playing human, elf, or half-elf. I guess I could give up Nature for something else, but then I don't really get part of the Favored Terrain benefit.

 

[bedir than]

I don't see the need for Athletics, but the rest are quite necessary in any non-urban Ranger (and that one only drops Nature).

 

[Xeviat]

I don't see the need for Athletics, but the rest are quite necessary in any non-urban Ranger (and that one only drops Nature).

Yeah ... maybe Athletics can be dropped for some Rangers. It's not like you need the Athletics skill to climb climbable things.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

It's kind of an interesting frustration of the Ranger to me. I don't feel like I have options in my skills. I feel like I need Athletics, Nature, Perception, Stealth, and Survival, which immediately limits the backgrounds I can pick and prevents me from having any other extra skills unless I'm playing human, elf, or half-elf. I guess I could give up Nature for something else, but then I don't really get part of the Favored Terrain benefit.

Remember that the backgrounds in the PHB (and in other official books) are really just suggestions. Here’s the quote from PHB p125:

”The sample backgrounds in this chapter provide both concrete benefits (features, proficiencies, and languages) and roleplaying suggestions.”

Work with your DM to create something that is on par with those samples. Could be as simple as an urchin who is very athletic... yep instead of Sleight of Hand, you have Athletics. Or it could be something entirely new that you create with your DM to ensure you have the full suite of skills that makes your Ranger feel most Rangery to you.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I love that classes don't automatically give "required" skills. It's one of the big strengths of 5e, that that falls to backgrounds.

I've played several clerics, but none have been acolytes (which is one way to guarantee the Religion skill, even if it's not taken as a class skill). I have played a fighter acolyte though, and it was a blast, with him insisting on proper holy rites when the cleric was just channeling divine power.

That flexibility is part of why 5e characters can be more diverse than in previous editions (without requiring them to be).

/my thoughts.

 

[Xeviat]

I love that classes don't automatically give "required" skills. It's one of the big strengths of 5e, that that falls to backgrounds.

I've played several clerics, but none have been acolytes (which is one way to guarantee the Religion skill, even if it's not taken as a class skill). I have played a fighter acolyte though, and it was a blast, with him insisting on proper holy rites when the cleric was just channeling divine power.

That flexibility is part of why 5e characters can be more diverse than in previous editions (without requiring them to be).

/my thoughts.

I feel like you misunderstood me. I didn't mean "you have to have this skill to take this class". I meant "taking this class automatically gives you this skill".

The ranger is the only one I'm really looking at because it's the only class that seems to have a mechanic that relies upon a specific skill. There's a few subclasses that do, but every ranger gets Vanish and Hide in Plain Sight. Rogues get Cunning action which lets you hide as a bonus action, but it gives you other options for that bonus action for people who aren't stealth focused.