The presence and modularity of the background system is what makes 5e's skill system work for me. It breaks a character out of their class in a way that was either impossible or badly disincentivized in earlier editions.
On the whole, I find that it offers less apparent choicr but more meaningful choice than 3.X, and more choice both apparent and meaningful than 4e. It's more baseline functional than the nonweapon proficiencies if AD&D as well.
It's not the most in depth system, but I'm just cglad that it's been mostly decoupled from class.
I like it. I thought 3.5's system was too fiddly.
I wish the bonuses for proficiency were more impactful. I like the skill list and how most classes can obtain a wide variety of skills, but the skill bonuses themselves are rarely relevant compared to the d20.
Lawolf wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
I might be mixing them up with tools. Thieves' tools definitely do.
_Satyesu_ wrote:
I REALLY like it. Mind you, I wish that the bonus was a die roll instead of a fixed number, but I hear that option will be in the DMG.
I really like it myself. I esp. like how they tied two skills to your class (more if bard/ranger/rogue) and two to your background.
Means that you can break from class archetypes without having to house rule or just suck with cross class.
But I found skillpoints annoyingly fiddly and like general skills.
My one concern is suggested DC's seem awkward. Will see what the full DMG says.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
I do not mind it to much. If could be expanded a little bit perhaps and maybe tweaked. I prefer it not to be dice based like Cyber Dave likes but I have no problem with it being an option and may have to ry it myself at some point.
It's impossible for most characters to be competent in any task in D&D 5e that does not involve fighting or casting spells.
A mountain ranger 20 will have an athletism bonus of +11 if he is str based.
Normally climbing don't require a check, but with a bonus of +11, if he finds a moderately difficult wall to climb (DC 15), he will have a 15% chance of falling.
That's not a very hard wall, this kind of thing should be an auto success for THE BEST CLIMBING RANGER IN THE WORLD. That same wall can be climbed by 30% of regular commoners on earth (or Faerun).
If you Find that inadequate you can give advantage to the ranger, or disvantage to the commoner, or change DCs to help the ranger and to impair the commoner. This is you as DM changing a bad rule in an effort to make any sense of it.
references: PHB pag. 182, pag. 174
Vowtz wrote:
Vowtz wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
The skill system works fine in my view. There is a disconcerting lack of the most useful skill ever - Use Rope - but with support from my family and friends and this sheep shank, I will persevere.
It's helpful to remember that it's a task resolution system that only comes into play when the DM thinks that an action stated by the player has an uncertain outcome. You don't just roll dice whenever you do a thing. Climbing a wall, for example, isn't a check unless there are circumstances that make success or failure uncertain, such as it's very slippery or you're being shot at with arrows. In the absence of those things, you just do it.
(Just hope and pray that your DM knows that.)
Atheosis wrote:
Jack of all Trades finally feels powerful in this system. It applies even to tool use.
I love the new skill system. Barbs can intimadate with str. A lock might need int instead of dex because it is more of a puzzle. So many things a DM/Player can do in this system.
_Satyesu_ wrote:
I liked the Alternity system for skill systems. Just too many skills. Very well thought out. Was still based on an attribute. But skill levels would add to the result of the roll, which in that system made a big difference. And difficulty was applied as an additional die to the roll with the D20 and you would either subtract or add depending whether it was a less or more difficult. I was hoping they would revitilize that system and streamline it like they did with D&D.
MechaPilot wrote:
_Satyesu_ wrote:
[quote="iserith"]
The skill system works fine in my view. There is a disconcerting lack of the most useful skill ever - Use Rope - but with support from my family and friends and this sheep shank, I will persevere.
[quote]
I knew something was missing! Rope Use would be a tool proficiency (it does require rope after all).
strider13x wrote:
I like the Proficiency mechanism, but the skills chosen for the core list on the sheet feels as though it could have been dispensed with and simply used the Saving Throws to encapsulate the Ability bonus in all related areas, plus Proficiency or not.
Said a different way: The list is clearly intended to cover the most essential 'skills', but since aeach just is a plce holder for the Ability Score mod., and Proficiency, and Savign Rolls already do that, why have a skill list? One could simply be proficient in Backgrounds instead. This would be more like 1st ed AD&D's Secondary Skills system driven by Saves.
[quote="Cyber-Dave"]
I REALLY like it. Mind you, I wish that the bonus was a die roll instead of a fixed number, but I hear that option will be in the DMG./quote]
I am also looking forward to a module for varying proficiency levels (where you can have more skills with lower bonuses).
Yeah I believe all skills having the same proficiency is great for a basic game but I'd prefer variable skill ranks and a lot longer list. I'd allow for more skill points too as a result. That does increase the com p lexity though so the fact it is a module won't bother me. The simple approach is a good option for some people.
I think using something like FATEs pyramid would be a good way to limit your top skill rank.
I hate the dominance of attributes. Total maxed out skill is +6 and any duffer with a 20 has a +5. I'd probably say that when your skill proficiency was less than your attribute bonus instead of adding attribute bonus, add your skill a second time.
There are not enough skills for our group.
I like the skill system alot. I feel Athletics and Acrobatics should just be part of the save system. Maybe climbing in Atheletics shouldn't be, but the other stuff for sure. But I find it to be the best skill system I have seen on 30 years.
I like the fact backgrounds provide skills outside of class and that the focus is on ability scores just as much as proficiency so the skill proficiencies themselves are not must-haves in order to us them. IE, DC 15 is an average roll for skill proficiency or high ability score, and what's considered moderately difficult.
I also like the fact some traditional skills were left as ability checks only. Learning rumors, for example. I like the approach that any skill checks are feasible for anyone regardless of proficiency, as a general rule.
I like the skill system well enough, but would greatly prefer a points based system ala 3e. I think that will probably be an option in DMG. Also quite like the idea of extra dice, instead of a fixed bonus. As long as that can interact with a points allocation base (eg I can allocate one skill a d4 bonus, and another a d8 bonus) - I will be extremely happy!
On the other hand, by the time DMG comes out, perhaps I'll wont be bothered to suggest to our table that we change it at all.
I think it's a great baseline system. I also like that individual players will likely be able to replace it with a skill point system without making my job as DM any more difficult, and without forcing the more complex system on other players. The only thing I don't like about it is that they reduced fields of lore down to five skills. I hope there are some good options in the DMG for expanding the skill list.
I like everything about the new skill system, more specifically the following:
1) No "only this class can do this".
2) No "this class doesn't get a useful number of skills".
3) Combining the class skill, background skill, and racial skill rules results in any character being able to have just about any skill they want
4) Any class can be good at any skill.
5) The difference between being proficient and not with a skill is not so huge as to result in players feeling they shouldn't bother trying something because of not having proficiency (because the DCs are not prohibitively high).
I REALLY like the change.
Back in 2e, all you had was languages and a single secondary skill.
3e went the opposite direction with many skills and skill point allocation for every level. It resulted in a lengthy (too lengthy IMO) character generation and leveling process.
4e, I just pretend didn't happen
5e has what I would call a good balance between player customization and efficiency. You have a few choices due to your class and a few more due to your background, but those choices are simply boolean choices. When leveling, you only need worry about whether your proficiency bonus increased. That makes for much quicker character generation and leveling than at any time since 2e. For DMs who generate NPCs, that's a really important benefit.
Does it not allow the skill customization of 3e? Sure, it focuses back on the fact that it should be your roleplaying, not the character attributes that provides the primary flavor elements for your character.
I do like that fact that skills are decoupled from class. I hate class skills. So that part of the skill system is a big win. I also like the concept that you try anything and apply the skill proficiency if it applies. All good stuff. I just like a longer list and variable advancement. I realize though that that may be a needless complexity for a lot of people so I do not begrudge it being a DMG choice instead of a PHB default. And yes I have read somewhere that they said they'd offer a module for skill points.
Liking the Skill System, though I'll be interested to see what options exist once the DMG comes out. I know of at least 2 players in my office who would rather Skill Points. This is mostly because we are all programmers here and they like to fiddle with stuff.
I'm actually very happy they have removed the concept of Ranks and Skill Point assignment . As the DM, I'll no longer have to spend a time validating character sheets. I found that many players rarely completed their skills correctly anyway.
I do agree that in 5e the skills are a little too broad, but I'm debating adding the list of 2e NWP back into the game. The reason is that I want the players to contribute to situations in ways that are unique the PC.
I think the best rule is to allow each NWP to grant a +1 bonus in addition to the skill prof.
For example, the rogue could add his Fast Talking NWP bonus to a Charisma (Persuasion) check.
dmgorgon wrote:
Vowtz wrote:
Climbing doesn't call for a Strength (Athletics) check every time, only when there are particularly difficult circumstances impeding the character from succeeding. It's not "I climb, therefore make a check." That is not how the game works.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
I like it.
- Decoupling skills from classes via backgrounds allows for flexibility and distinctiveness
- The proficiency bonus is an elegant and streamlined implementation
- The broader skillls prevent things from becoming too fiddly
Apparently we should be getting 'DIY' skills and skill die options in the DMG, which are nice options to have too.
Mistwell wrote:
iserith wrote:
dwgautier wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Coming from a decade playing 3.x it took our group a few games before we started to get comfortable with the idea that skills were really more broad in 5th edition. Time and again we would instinctivly look to use a specific skill and it wasn't there. Once we really changed the way we thougth about the relationship between characters and skills suddenly we went from being iffy on skills to seeing how well they work.
We have been happy that the dice plays a bigger role than the proficiency. To many 3rd edition games turned into either you are highly skilled or not skilled, no real reason to be in between. We also adopted, as many have mentioned, a position that if there is nothing distracting the PC's and there is no real consequence for failure then they just auto-succeed, assuming they have sufficent bonus.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Huntsman57 wrote:
"One oddity with the 5E background system is that in many cases you are least likely to choose a background that lines up best with your class since you're just duplicating proficiencies, and they don't stack."
If you get two proficiencies in the same skill from different sources you get to choose any other skill to be proficient in. Assuming you aren't just choosing skills carte blanche and are using the predetermined backgrounds, that can be very handy.
I like that you don't have skill ranks like in 3e.
I'm not sure what to think about the shorter skill list like in 4e. I tend to like more informal skill systems or broad skills like in 4e because it makes my character sheet cleaner but I also think that these broad skill systems leave less room for character customization. If my character learns how to climb walls I don't understand why he automatically becomes better at swimming and shoving in combat. Broader skills also restricts your design space. You can't make a halfling that is better at climbing like in AD&D/3e without making him better at pushing and tripping people. It's not surprising that the 5e halfling doesn't get skill bonuses. And then you have things like boots of elvenkind. How do you design them in a game that doesn't have move silently? You might think about a bonus to stealth checks but does it make sense that boots of elvenkind give you a bonus to stealth check when you are standing perfectly still? Or what about your armor? If you're standing perfectly still, why does your armor give you disadvantage to your stealth checks? The DM can adjudicate for these things but that's kind of the same as having a Hide and Move Silently skill without specifically mentioning it.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Overall... I like the system.
It is simple, avoids lots of math and heavy rules (ranks, cross classing, etc.), avoids multiple skills/rolls (hide vs. move silently), and it gets rid of mundan uses such as rolling for simple jumping, horse riding, etc. I also like that skills aren't so heavily tied to class... background makes a lot of sense that a rogue might have survival if they grew up in the woods, or a cleric might have performance because his family were entertainers. Rogues and bards don't take five minutes of fiddling to pick skills, you don't see cheesy 1 point in each knowledge skill so you can make a roll, and you don't see 5 ranks in skills in order to give a synergy bonus.
I also like that skills aren't criticial. They aren't needed for mundane things nor do they give super-human abilities -- such as leaping 40', tumbling through a dozen orcs, making your horse unhittable in combat. I also like the fact that proficiency means that there is a growing, but not overwhelming ability given to characters who have the skills. I do miss degrees in skills. I.e. if you have athletics and performance, you always get better at both. But, IMO, this is a fair trade-off for not having to deal with the complexity and time of the skill point system.
Mistwell wrote:
Vowtz wrote:
Vowtz wrote:
BW0222 wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
The thing I don't like about skill points is that it seemed like you had to have maxed out ranks with your skills with a high attribute, and a skill focus feat to be good at a skill in 3.x and PF. So there was really no point in having a few ranks in a skill.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
I may just be reading you wrong, but it sounds like a lot of you are just asking for skill checks whenever a player suggests doing something that vaguely lines up with a skill check rather than asking how they do something and making a determination if the outcome is actually uncertain before asking for a roll.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
_Satyesu_ wrote:
Vowtz wrote:
iserith wrote:
Thalion94518 wrote:
There are things I like about 5e and things I hate about it. The skill system is neither.
I like it. My only issue is that you can't gain new ones, which sort of breaks in my head.
CVB wrote:
FaerieGodfather wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
iserith wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
I want to give out a pin to every white-room theory-crafter who criticizes, without having actually played, this edition...
It continues to amaze me how much fun this iteration of D&D is at the table (pre-conceptions and assumptions be darned).
Azzy1974 wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
I used to own Masque of the Red Death set, and have re-purchased the .pdf, just because of this discussion. I think that the 5e system is like looking at the Headings for the Proficiencies in MotRD, (General, Military, Educational, Wilderness, Professional, Arcane, and Rogue) without having the individual skills, such that the total number of NWPs is the Heading value.
This is good and bad. For thosee who like to just get on with, 'can my PC do this?', it works. For the charcter and setting-centric, detail oriented folks, it is not only falling flat, we are running into the cart before the horse with the Tool Kits 'problem'.
In my homebrew Sci-Fantasy campaign, I am using a mix of 1e percentage-like skills, and the Heading system style, where the parts of the PC which most matter are percentile skills (and roll-high, at that) and give a high degree of finite control over factors (DCs) and what can and will help or harm chances of success, while the Saving Throw-driven 5e skills are just there to say, yes, you know ho to do that in and of yourself. So far, it appears to give folks what they are looking for; besides, a mix of dice is fun in a single Core mechanic-driven system to break up the monotony. ;)
I was hoping Skills would be optional, like Feats.
Brock_Landers wrote:
FaerieGodfather wrote:
The main thing I don't like about the skill system, is a problem with D&D overall, in reference to certain attributes being too beneficial to maximize a set of skills. Otherwise, I do like decoupling skills from class, with the exception of the rogue. I never liked a skill monkey class, and it makes more sense for the bard to fill that role. The other thing I don't like about the skill system is being a separate sub-system that does not interact well with attacks or save mechanics. It is hard to substitute a skill check for an attack, or save, or vice versa.
Uchawi wrote:
Timeshadows wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
To me the 5th editon skill system feals to random becouse i think training in something should outweigh aptitude (ability score).
it feals strange to me when a untrained person can regurlarly out perform a character that is trained to do a specific task.
Especialy at the lower DC range where certain tasks would have become routine to a person who is trained ( +0 ablility +2 prof)
While the person with the high ability might try such a task for the first time (+3 ability +0 prof) is sligtly better at the task even though he has no experience at performing such tasks.
But we will have to see how the system works out when we have played the game for a longer period of time.
During the playtest I did guggest a alternative skill system.
where for a untrained person the roll would be D20+ ability score modifyer, and for a trained person 8+d12 + ablity score modifyer.
This would result in the trained person being a lot more competent in performing the low DC tasks in a skill where he has training, while the high ability score would still be needed to be able to get extraordenary results ( DC above 20).
Zardnaar wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
_Satyesu_ wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Moot_Dundle wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
5E backed away from making healing more versatile in combat, including healing scaling for certain classes, which provides a buffer for combat as war. Just like more damage, hit points, saves, or various effects makes combat more versatile. I get some people don't mind re-rolling characters, but others like myself, invest in the character backstory, etc. So no matter how light or simple the character creation rules are, it still takes time to build a concept.
Uchawi wrote:
Ashrym wrote: