D&D 5E Some thoughts on skills.

[Minigiant]

Given how the rest of skills work, there probably only should be only one; or at most two. 5 skills with niche uses makes for pretty weak knowledge skills (and there is the common problem of vague DCs that don't specify for the DM what sorts of things a knowledge check may reveal). Better than 3e, but not great. Most especially since if the group needs information for plot reasons they'll get it that information one way or the other. The knowledge skills are rarely as useful as the more active skills - in fact, I'd say everyone should get a knowledege skills for free from their backgrounds, and knoweldge skills should be considered as weaker than active skills - like tool proficiencies are.

Also, like tool proficiencies and languages, a character could practice to learn more of them in downtime.

Tashas more or less put skills, tools, languages, and weapons.

Knowledge skills could be downgraded to a proficiency of the same level as tools. Tools, vehicle, instruments, and knowledges should be the same level.

 

[ph0rk]

Which would be a good change, but now characters need it get clear allotments of each type. In the present system, knowledge skills are erroneously presented alongside active skills.

 

[Clint_L]

By that logic there should only be a single Knowledge skill.

Probably, if you are measuring their worth by utility. Knowledge skills get very little use in most campaigns. I would love to see a breakdown of the data from DnDBeyond on skill usage. I would bet that perception checks get rolled at least an order of magnitude more than any knowledge check. The knowledge skills seem to be mostly for flavour.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I started writing several items, then realized they either break BA or are likely too complex for 5E simplicity ethos. I need to just stop and listen to folks for a bit.

Are we hung up on WotC's simplicity ethos? 5e certainly doesn't need to be super-simple. WotC made that choice, but we don't have to.

 

[payn]

Are we hung up on WotC's simplicity ethos? 5e certainly doesn't need to be super-simple. WotC made that choice, but we don't have to.

Well, if its unlikely to be picked up by WotC and is purely homebrew ideas, that changes a lot of the thought path I have for this exercise. I was just doing a mental start, stop, continue to gather my thoughts. I know how I would do many things, but I'm also curious what a lot of folks want too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, if its unlikely to be picked up by WotC and is purely homebrew ideas, that changes a lot of the thought path I have for this exercise. I was just doing a mental start, stop, continue to gather my thoughts. I know how I would do many things, but I'm also curious what a lot of folks want too.

I'm a Level Up fan, and they already do a lot of these things. I don't see simplicity as a virtue in and of itself, and it's not like anything said here about game design is actually going to influence WotC.

 

[payn]

I'm a Level Up fan, and they already do a lot of these things. I don't see simplicity as a virtue in and of itself, and it's not like anything said here about game design is actually going to influence WotC.

Sure, fine. I still see different paths and my thought process changes depending on which one I take. I simply wanted to hear what folks wanted and their desires before continuing. At this point ive kinda lost interest in the thread anyways.

 

[iserith]

Probably, if you are measuring their worth by utility. Knowledge skills get very little use in most campaigns. I would love to see a breakdown of the data from DnDBeyond on skill usage. I would bet that perception checks get rolled at least an order of magnitude more than any knowledge check. The knowledge skills seem to be mostly for flavour.

You could probably just make all "knowledge checks" a straight Intelligence check as it's resolving whether or not a character can recall something, when that outcome is in doubt.

Ultimately, it's up to the DM to effectively incentivize the players to establish their characters as attempting to recall lore. In my games, it's most often attempting to recall knowledge about a monster. Certain skills can relate to particular monster types, so a skill proficiency gives the character a bit of an edge over someone who doesn't have that skill, but no skill is required to attempt to do most things in D&D 5e. It's just a matter of the player describing what they want to do.

The next most common usage in my games is during social interaction challenges where sometimes knowledge in History can help them recall facts relevant to the exchange. Spouting these facts can help with trying to convince the NPC to do the thing they want them to do.

But, if recalling monster lore isn't useful, perhaps because the DM doesn't ever change up monsters or social interaction challenges are less structured, then there's little incentive for players to describe their characters as attempting to recall lore and thus take those skill proficiencies.

 

[Baron Opal II]

You could probably just make all "knowledge checks" a straight Intelligence check as it's resolving whether or not a character can recall something, when that outcome is in doubt.

A plan I have for my next campaign is to have a single knowledge skill, but gated by class. Wizards have arcane knowledge, clerics, doctrine and planar knowledge, fighters know armaments, battles, coats of arms, thieves know the underworld, who the urban movers and shakers are. If you are a fighter and want to know a lot about magic, then spend a feat and you have access to a broader realm of knowledge.

One thing I like about 5E is the lack of skill points.

 

[Pedantic]

Yeah, all this talk of skill splitting/lumping doesn't really matter if we're not going to establish what skills actually do. You can always make athletics 3 skills and give out additional proficiencies or points, or 1 and give out less.

It is a problem if we're evaluating something like 3.5 Use Magic Device and Swim as equally investments in a scarce economy, but there's a lot of ways to solve that problem.