D&D 5E There's one thing about 5E I don't like...

[EroGaki]

Let me just preface this by saying that, overall, I'm loving 5E. That being said...

One aspect I'm not too fond of are the skills. Specifically, how once you pick your class and background you are essentially locked in, and have no means of learning new skills. Basically, your character has no ability to learn and improve in game, no matter how much you practice. If a character wants to learn how to tumble, for instance, there's really no means becoming proficient, other than maybe multiclassing into one of the few classes that offer that ability.

Now, I know there is a feat that allows you to pick up a few new skills. The problem is that it's a feat, and feats are optional; I've read plenty of threads with DM's stating they won't be allowing feats in their games. I really wish the dev's would have added a method in the basic rule set for acquiring new skills. I don't like the idea of having a character become static, and unable to learn and grow.

 

[Juriel]

Multiclass, some of those give you new skills.
Learn new languages or tool proficiencies by spending a bit of time and 250 gold.

 

[Falling Icicle]

You can learn new tools and languages during play. I would be surprised if there weren't options for doing that with skills in the DMG.

 

[1of3]

You could retrain your background skills, I guess, keeping the number of skill the same.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think it's even worse with weapons. You can't learn proficiency in an additional weapon unless you take a feat, but then you have to take the whole rest of the feat.

For skills, one possible additional option is the rumored 3e-style skill points module, which however will cost you progression in another skill, and increase fiddlybitness.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So, wait, the PHB didn't include any options for learning new skills or weapon proficiences except the one Feat for each (which is pretty insultingly weak, if I understand correctly, isn't it like 4 weapons or something? Seems like a waste of everyone's time, because you can definitely get any weapons you NEED that way, but it forces you to deal with precisely which ones you know)? That seems bizarre.

 

[dd.stevenson]

So, wait, the PHB didn't include any options for learning new skills or weapon proficiences except the one Feat for each (which is pretty insultingly weak, if I understand correctly, isn't it like 4 weapons or something? Seems like a waste of everyone's time, because you can definitely get any weapons you NEED that way, but it forces you to deal with precisely which ones you know)? That seems bizarre.

There are downtime rules for training for proficiency with tools and learning languages. "Other training options" are left up to the DM's discretion.

 

[Charles Wright]

Starting weapon proficiencies for martial classes are HUGE groups.

Fighters are proficient in all Simple and Martial weapons. Note that it doesn't say "ranged" or "melee", so they're proficient with every weapon in the PHB. (listed on page 149).

Barbarians - Simple and Martial weapons, same as the Fighter

Bard - All simple weapons (15 of them), plus hand crossbows, longswords, rapiers, and shortswords

Cleric - Simple Weapons (15 of them)

Druids - Clubs, Darts, javelins, maces, quarterstaffs, scimitars, sickles, slings, and spears

Monk - Simple Weapons (15 of them), plus shortswords.

Paladin - Simple and Martial weapons, same as the fighter

Ranger - Simple and Martial weapons, same as the fighter

Rogue - Simple Weapons (15 of them), plus hand crossbows, longswords, rapiers, and shortswords

Sorcerer - Daggers, Darts, slings, quarterstaffs, and light crossbows

Warlock - Simple Weapons (15 of them)

Wizard - Daggers, darts, slings, quarterstaffs, and light crossbows.


So when it comes to complaining about the number of weapon proficiencies:

Mountain, meet molehill.

 

[Charles Wright]

As for the skills, there are 18 total in the game, most people start with 4 (Rogues start with 6, Bards with 5 and can get up to 8 if they go the "Lore" route). There is absolutely no drawback to not having a skill. You just don't get the proficiency bonus on your die roll, you still get your ability score bonus if it applies.

 

[Hannerdyn]

...There is absolutely no drawback to not having a skill. You just don't get the proficiency bonus on your die roll...

Lacking the proficiency bonus is a drawback, mechanically. Further, I like my characters from a purely RP perspective to pick up little bits of skills here and there as they adventure, even grow to be a true expert in a skill eventually. (I had a cleric of Azuth who was a pretty experienced survivalist by the end of his career, for instance). The PHB by itself does not allow the opportunity to simulate that.

I'm with the OP, this is something missing for me. It's still a great game, but I'd like to see it addressed in the DMG. If not, not a big deal to house-rule something.