I haven't posted an essay in a while (I've been writing a lot recently, but, you know ... stuff I have to do), but two recent threads had me thinking about the skill system in 5e24: I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (hereafter, just "5e"), and how I think it can best be used (in terms of playing characters and adjudication on the part of the DM) in order to optimize fun and maximize joy!
Specifically, the current thread on ranking the 5e skills from most to least useful made me think about the ways in which ... I don't think that this is necessarily a good way to view the skill system in 5e. Look- I'm not going to say that 5e's skill system is perfect. Or great. Or good. Or ... um, even that passable, but it mostly works, and when approached with a spirit of openness in play and adjudication, it can add some fun differentiation to how characters interact with the game world, and deepens roleplaying possibilities.
That said, I am also reminded of another recent thread, where a person asked (in essence, and I am simplifying) how a party that specifically dumped all their intelligence could use charisma to find secret doors.
This brief (for my definition of brief) essay is an attempt to navigate the Scylla and Charybdis of those two threads. On the one hand, how can we look at the 5e skill system and not just view it as another choice point used to optimize The Greatest D&D Character Of All Time? On the other hand, how can we make sure that the skill system is flexible and fun for players, while still maintaining enough fidelity to the rules that players don't just use their best skill and spam it for every task (Sir Maxcharismawithexpertiseinintimidate will intimidate all the walls in the room to make them divulge the location of the secret door!)?
Disclaimer- this isn't a guide to skill tiers, optimizing, or the "best" skills. If you want to see thoughts on that, please go to the first link above. People have excellent thoughts on the issue in that thread!
A. 5e has "game" skills, and ... skills that are ... not so much.
I am not planning on writing a long treatise on the strengths (not so many) and the weaknesses (they are legion) in the 5e skill system. But my own thoughts on it are that it is both not granular enough for people that really like skills (like a 3e/PF system) and it's also a little too granular and game-y for people that prefer a more free-flowing approach. In addition, the biggest problem with skills lies in ... uneven adjudication, which I will get into in the next section.
With that said, the reason people feel confident ranking skills is that there are a few skills that repeatedly have specific game impacts, while the rest of the skills are situational, "ribbon," lore-based, and so on. So before getting into the nitty-gritty of what I really want to talk about, I am going to discuss the skills I am specifically exempting from the discussion as "game skills."
1. The Inherently Useful Skill
Perception. Look, there's a reason that there's a space for passive perception on your character sheet. Perception isn't a "fun" skill, it's not a defining trait of most characters, but it certainly has a consistent impact on the game.
2. The Adventuring Skills
Investigation and Insight. Tell me what the person/place is really like. Give me more information. ...where is that secret door?
3. The Thief Skills.
Stealth and Sleight of Hand. From skulking in the shadows to picking pockets to getting advantage (with your thieves' tools) on opening locks to all the things your classic AD&D Thief wanted to do (but Gygax would punish 'em for), stealth and sleight of hand will mostly have you covered.
4. The Physical Skills.
Athletics and Acrobatics. Athletics is more useful than acrobatics, both as written and because it is more likely to be called for as an explicit check, but many things can be accomplished with either/or.
5. The Social Skills.
Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation. I have a .... slight problem with the social skills, and I don't just mean in terms of how differently tables use these skills and how differently DMs adjudicate them. The basic problem I have is this- there is almost never a situation where you can't use persuasion instead of defaulting to one of the other two social skills. It's very rare for a skilled player to not be able to think of some way to use persuasion instead of one of the other two, and most DMs default to more hostile reactions when there is a failed deception or intimidation roll.
With that said, and with an eye on the next section, I would argue that creative differentiation of the three skills (and good adjudication on the part of the DM) allows better character development. How many times have you made a high charisma character (a warlock, a sorcerer, an oath of vengeance paladin, etc.) that has a high charisma, who is a force of personality ... but is not sociable, is not persuasive - but is someone to be feared? An intimidating presence? In other words, don't choose the social skills based on what you think is best- choose them based on how your character really interacts with the world! ...but talk to your DM to ensure that they don't instinctively punish you for staying true to the character.
B. The Uneven Nature of Adjudication and How it Can Be Improved
One of the most frustrating things about skills in 5e is how variable they can be from table-to-table. One issue (that is detailed in the next section) is about adjudicating creative uses for skills. But the more important, and recurring, issue is that ... it can so often seem arbitrary and unfair. People will often say, "5e is great, because even if you don't have a skill and suck at something, you might succeed while the character with the high ability and expertise fails!" Which ... is true. But there's a flip side to that. Why bother investing all the resources and character development in skills when you won't ever be that great, and someone will just end up casting a spell when you really need to get something done anyway?
So I think it's important for DMs to be generous when it comes to skills- especially when a character is really good at something. Remember that as part of the DC process, the DM should also evaluate the character's capabilities, and while most people concentrate on one aspect of that (you don't get a roll if something is impossible), there is also an equally important part- the player shouldn't have to roll for something that they should be able to accomplish!
Because rolls are supposed to meaningful- if the character has time (can repeatedly do something and failure doesn't matter) or if their ability is so great that they would never fail at the task ... don't demand a roll. Let them succeed and narrate their success. Allow the player to enjoy their skilled character.
The same goes for investing in non-game skills. For example, let's say that there's a specific piece of historical information that might be known- I'd reward a player that invested in the history skill, and allow them to roll to see if they knew that, while characters that did not invest in that skill (that did not know history) would not get the roll.
The more a DM adjudicates skills so that they are useful to the game, the more likely players are to find them useful, and the more they will be used and integral to the players' conception of their characters.
C. How the Remaining Skills Tell the Story of Your Character and Can Become Integral to the Game
So what are the skills that are left?
Arcana, Survival, Medicine, Nature, Religion, History, Animal Handling, Performance
Okay, arcana is now much more "gamey" than it used to be, but I'd still put it here. I'd argue that all of these skills tend to be given short shrift by many players or are seen as niche, campaign-dependent, etc. But to me, they are the most interesting skills because they are truly what makes characters shine as characters and provide ways for you to think about new ways to roleplay and interact with the game world. Allow me to explain-
You have a Rogue that is (or will) subclass into assassin. Think of the differences in these four skill elections-
1. Medicine. The character started as a healer's assistant, before turning to the dark arts of using their medical skills for woe, not weal. The same knowledge that lets them know how to help the body recover also assists them in finding ways to end life, permanently.
2. Religion. The character is a zealot of XXXXX, who has studied all the religions in order to understand the ways in which they are unbelievers and, if needed, infiltrate and destroy them.
3. History. The character is conflicted about their choices in life, and spends their time and the money they earn going to the great libraries to immerse themselves in the history of the world which allows them to forget the present.
4. Performance. The character spent their time before joining the party with a traveling troupe of musicians and actors, which provided a cover for their activities and allowed them to become an incredibly skilled performer. They left the troupe when they became rather too-well known for their performances.
These are off the top of my head, but all of these skills (because they imply that the character has SKILL in that area) imply something about the character. Immediately, they should provide something to allow the player to have a better idea as to who the character is. But just as importantly, these skills will then give you a specific way for your character to interact with the game world.
If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
This is where I want to stress that I do not endorse spamming your best skill regardless of the situation.... "I will use my animal handling to see if I know that historical fact!" NO! Instead, I recommend that players think like their characters do- if you're really good at something, you will probably think of ways to use that to help yourself. And DMs should reward that, as long as it is being used in a manner that is consistent with the skill, the character, and the game world. Now, that's a lot of wishy-washy talk, so what does it mean?
So the assassin with religion (see 2, above)? Imagine he's trying to convince a Priest of Pelor to let the party pass by telling him that the party are pilgrims (and not murderhobos) based on his knowledge of Pelor's pilgrimages. How should the DM adjudicate this? A straight deception check? I would argue... no. Depending on the circumstances, I'd either call for a charisma check with the religion skill modifier, or I'd call for a deception check with advantage (due to the assassin's religion skill and expertise in same).
That's one example, but the idea should be clear- skills, especially the non-game skills, should not be considered as some stand-alone ability, but should be considered in the context of the character and the world, and players should be consistently rewarded for playing their characters as characters- which means leveraging what makes them different, unique, and fun.
Anyway, that's how I prefer to use the 5e skill system, and I think it encourages creative play and differentiated characters. YMMV!
Specifically, the current thread on ranking the 5e skills from most to least useful made me think about the ways in which ... I don't think that this is necessarily a good way to view the skill system in 5e. Look- I'm not going to say that 5e's skill system is perfect. Or great. Or good. Or ... um, even that passable, but it mostly works, and when approached with a spirit of openness in play and adjudication, it can add some fun differentiation to how characters interact with the game world, and deepens roleplaying possibilities.
That said, I am also reminded of another recent thread, where a person asked (in essence, and I am simplifying) how a party that specifically dumped all their intelligence could use charisma to find secret doors.
This brief (for my definition of brief) essay is an attempt to navigate the Scylla and Charybdis of those two threads. On the one hand, how can we look at the 5e skill system and not just view it as another choice point used to optimize The Greatest D&D Character Of All Time? On the other hand, how can we make sure that the skill system is flexible and fun for players, while still maintaining enough fidelity to the rules that players don't just use their best skill and spam it for every task (Sir Maxcharismawithexpertiseinintimidate will intimidate all the walls in the room to make them divulge the location of the secret door!)?
Disclaimer- this isn't a guide to skill tiers, optimizing, or the "best" skills. If you want to see thoughts on that, please go to the first link above. People have excellent thoughts on the issue in that thread!
A. 5e has "game" skills, and ... skills that are ... not so much.
I am not planning on writing a long treatise on the strengths (not so many) and the weaknesses (they are legion) in the 5e skill system. But my own thoughts on it are that it is both not granular enough for people that really like skills (like a 3e/PF system) and it's also a little too granular and game-y for people that prefer a more free-flowing approach. In addition, the biggest problem with skills lies in ... uneven adjudication, which I will get into in the next section.
With that said, the reason people feel confident ranking skills is that there are a few skills that repeatedly have specific game impacts, while the rest of the skills are situational, "ribbon," lore-based, and so on. So before getting into the nitty-gritty of what I really want to talk about, I am going to discuss the skills I am specifically exempting from the discussion as "game skills."
1. The Inherently Useful Skill
Perception. Look, there's a reason that there's a space for passive perception on your character sheet. Perception isn't a "fun" skill, it's not a defining trait of most characters, but it certainly has a consistent impact on the game.
2. The Adventuring Skills
Investigation and Insight. Tell me what the person/place is really like. Give me more information. ...where is that secret door?
3. The Thief Skills.
Stealth and Sleight of Hand. From skulking in the shadows to picking pockets to getting advantage (with your thieves' tools) on opening locks to all the things your classic AD&D Thief wanted to do (but Gygax would punish 'em for), stealth and sleight of hand will mostly have you covered.
4. The Physical Skills.
Athletics and Acrobatics. Athletics is more useful than acrobatics, both as written and because it is more likely to be called for as an explicit check, but many things can be accomplished with either/or.
5. The Social Skills.
Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation. I have a .... slight problem with the social skills, and I don't just mean in terms of how differently tables use these skills and how differently DMs adjudicate them. The basic problem I have is this- there is almost never a situation where you can't use persuasion instead of defaulting to one of the other two social skills. It's very rare for a skilled player to not be able to think of some way to use persuasion instead of one of the other two, and most DMs default to more hostile reactions when there is a failed deception or intimidation roll.
With that said, and with an eye on the next section, I would argue that creative differentiation of the three skills (and good adjudication on the part of the DM) allows better character development. How many times have you made a high charisma character (a warlock, a sorcerer, an oath of vengeance paladin, etc.) that has a high charisma, who is a force of personality ... but is not sociable, is not persuasive - but is someone to be feared? An intimidating presence? In other words, don't choose the social skills based on what you think is best- choose them based on how your character really interacts with the world! ...but talk to your DM to ensure that they don't instinctively punish you for staying true to the character.
B. The Uneven Nature of Adjudication and How it Can Be Improved
One of the most frustrating things about skills in 5e is how variable they can be from table-to-table. One issue (that is detailed in the next section) is about adjudicating creative uses for skills. But the more important, and recurring, issue is that ... it can so often seem arbitrary and unfair. People will often say, "5e is great, because even if you don't have a skill and suck at something, you might succeed while the character with the high ability and expertise fails!" Which ... is true. But there's a flip side to that. Why bother investing all the resources and character development in skills when you won't ever be that great, and someone will just end up casting a spell when you really need to get something done anyway?
So I think it's important for DMs to be generous when it comes to skills- especially when a character is really good at something. Remember that as part of the DC process, the DM should also evaluate the character's capabilities, and while most people concentrate on one aspect of that (you don't get a roll if something is impossible), there is also an equally important part- the player shouldn't have to roll for something that they should be able to accomplish!
Because rolls are supposed to meaningful- if the character has time (can repeatedly do something and failure doesn't matter) or if their ability is so great that they would never fail at the task ... don't demand a roll. Let them succeed and narrate their success. Allow the player to enjoy their skilled character.
The same goes for investing in non-game skills. For example, let's say that there's a specific piece of historical information that might be known- I'd reward a player that invested in the history skill, and allow them to roll to see if they knew that, while characters that did not invest in that skill (that did not know history) would not get the roll.
The more a DM adjudicates skills so that they are useful to the game, the more likely players are to find them useful, and the more they will be used and integral to the players' conception of their characters.
C. How the Remaining Skills Tell the Story of Your Character and Can Become Integral to the Game
So what are the skills that are left?
Arcana, Survival, Medicine, Nature, Religion, History, Animal Handling, Performance
Okay, arcana is now much more "gamey" than it used to be, but I'd still put it here. I'd argue that all of these skills tend to be given short shrift by many players or are seen as niche, campaign-dependent, etc. But to me, they are the most interesting skills because they are truly what makes characters shine as characters and provide ways for you to think about new ways to roleplay and interact with the game world. Allow me to explain-
You have a Rogue that is (or will) subclass into assassin. Think of the differences in these four skill elections-
1. Medicine. The character started as a healer's assistant, before turning to the dark arts of using their medical skills for woe, not weal. The same knowledge that lets them know how to help the body recover also assists them in finding ways to end life, permanently.
2. Religion. The character is a zealot of XXXXX, who has studied all the religions in order to understand the ways in which they are unbelievers and, if needed, infiltrate and destroy them.
3. History. The character is conflicted about their choices in life, and spends their time and the money they earn going to the great libraries to immerse themselves in the history of the world which allows them to forget the present.
4. Performance. The character spent their time before joining the party with a traveling troupe of musicians and actors, which provided a cover for their activities and allowed them to become an incredibly skilled performer. They left the troupe when they became rather too-well known for their performances.
These are off the top of my head, but all of these skills (because they imply that the character has SKILL in that area) imply something about the character. Immediately, they should provide something to allow the player to have a better idea as to who the character is. But just as importantly, these skills will then give you a specific way for your character to interact with the game world.
If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
This is where I want to stress that I do not endorse spamming your best skill regardless of the situation.... "I will use my animal handling to see if I know that historical fact!" NO! Instead, I recommend that players think like their characters do- if you're really good at something, you will probably think of ways to use that to help yourself. And DMs should reward that, as long as it is being used in a manner that is consistent with the skill, the character, and the game world. Now, that's a lot of wishy-washy talk, so what does it mean?
So the assassin with religion (see 2, above)? Imagine he's trying to convince a Priest of Pelor to let the party pass by telling him that the party are pilgrims (and not murderhobos) based on his knowledge of Pelor's pilgrimages. How should the DM adjudicate this? A straight deception check? I would argue... no. Depending on the circumstances, I'd either call for a charisma check with the religion skill modifier, or I'd call for a deception check with advantage (due to the assassin's religion skill and expertise in same).
That's one example, but the idea should be clear- skills, especially the non-game skills, should not be considered as some stand-alone ability, but should be considered in the context of the character and the world, and players should be consistently rewarded for playing their characters as characters- which means leveraging what makes them different, unique, and fun.
Anyway, that's how I prefer to use the 5e skill system, and I think it encourages creative play and differentiated characters. YMMV!
