Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 7371845" data-attributes="member: 12377">If there's anybody who deserves a third skill, it's the monk. The monk's skill list isn't super impressive, and I feel like it fits their vibe to have spent more time honing their skills than most characters.That said, I could definitely see an argument for giving a third skill to the fighter, and also to the warlock, for much the same reasoning. These characters just seem like they would have had more time to work on their normal skills, since their class abilities require less exotic specialization. But that might hold true for the barbarian and sorcerer also.At that point, the bard and the ranger are no longer feeling particularly special in terms of skills. That might be OK. Or it might be OK to bump them up to 4 skills, same as the rogue. Rogue would still have more and better Expertise, so they'd still be the king of skill monkeys. So then we'd have 3 classes with four skills (bard, ranger, rogue), 5 with three skills (barbarian, fighter, monk, sorcerer, warlock) and 4 with two skills (cleric, druid, paladin, wizard). This would make three skills a true middle, or average, option.Honestly, I think the designers were just stingy with the skill proficiencies in early 5E. Races in Volo's and subclasses in Xanathar's seem to give out skill proficiencies much more readily.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="77IM, post: 7371845, member: 12377"] If there's anybody who deserves a third skill, it's the monk. The monk's skill list isn't super impressive, and I feel like it fits their vibe to have spent more time honing their skills than most characters. That said, I could definitely see an argument for giving a third skill to the fighter, and also to the warlock, for much the same reasoning. These characters just seem like they would have had more time to work on their normal skills, since their class abilities require less exotic specialization. But that might hold true for the barbarian and sorcerer also. At that point, the bard and the ranger are no longer feeling particularly special in terms of skills. That might be OK. Or it might be OK to bump them up to 4 skills, same as the rogue. Rogue would still have more and better Expertise, so they'd still be the king of skill monkeys. So then we'd have 3 classes with four skills (bard, ranger, rogue), 5 with three skills (barbarian, fighter, monk, sorcerer, warlock) and 4 with two skills (cleric, druid, paladin, wizard). This would make three skills a true middle, or average, option. Honestly, I think the designers were just stingy with the skill proficiencies in early 5E. Races in Volo's and subclasses in Xanathar's seem to give out skill proficiencies much more readily. [/QUOTE]

Verification