By not having an "unskilled" concept the 5e SRD tries to work for a more "old school" game feel, where any character can do anything the player can make a case to the GM for. Which is good for players who like that style of play that is more open to negotiation between the players and GM then more "rules heavy" players who use the details in the rules to handle player/GM interactions. This is a matter of taste, whatever style you prefer is your preference, there is no absolute right or wrong (though it sucks when you and your GM or other players have different preferences). The rules as written (or RAW in gamer slang) do lean towards that old school play-style though since they do not give very detailed guidelines for what each skill can be used for.
In fact, let me list what the rules have to say about each skill. I am going to re-organize the skill list though, the SRD puts each skill with a specific attribute which is stupid. The easy example is Intimidation, which is under Charisma, but that makes no sense for a high Strength low Charisma Fighter. Their bulging muscles, heavy armor and weapons and skill at killing do not make them scary at all (insert irony here). That's an obvious place to add Strength instead of Charisma. On the other hand, threatening someone with your powerful friends or that you'll cast a curse on them would totally be Charisma. Likewise a sprint might be Strength, an obstacle course or hurdles Dexterity, and a marathon Constitution - even though all are the same skill of running/ athletics. So for the list below I'm going to put the skill under the action categories I've been using (though not for a while now). Also, I'm going to bullet point what each skill is good for, because frankly the SRD wastes a lot of words when describing the skills. So let's look at the skill and what the SRD says to use them for...
Exploring
Athlethics
- climbing
- jumping
- swimming
- keep your balance
- dive, tumble, roll or flip
- hide from soneone
- move without being noticed
- (hiding does have a detailed breakdown in a sidebar)
- calm an animal
- maneuver a mount
- intuit animal's intentions
- spot, hear or otherwise notice something in the environment
- hunt
- guide/ navigate
- predict weather
- avoid hazards
Investigating
Arcana
- identify spells
- identify magic items
- knowledge about the planes
- past events, people and civilizations
- look around for clues and make deductions from clues
- terrain
- plants and animals
- weather
- dieties
- religious hierarchies
- secret cults
Manipulating
Sleight of Hand
- planting or lifting an object on/from another person
- concealing an item on your person
- stabilize a dying companion
- diagnose an illness
- (I find it a little odd that healing is not mentioned at all)
Talking
Insight
- determine the true intentions of a creature
- hide the truth from another
- influence another's actions through threats/violence
- "delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling or some other form of entertainment"
- influence with "tact, social graces, or good nature"
Fighting
There are no skills for fighting, exactly, rather you have the weapon proficiencies and such that are scattered throughout the rules
Okay, I'm not listing the full descriptions here, but if you read them please tell me if you think they suck. I really don't like the way the SRD describes the skills at all. There are no examples of actions that might be more difficult - that whole Easy, Medium and Hard DC chart that opened this section of the rules - which is the kind of thing that a more "rules heavy" table could use, and the descriptions get overly specific for what a "rules light" table needs. I think in trying to accommodate both play styles they ended up being useful to neither. And the tools/ tool proficiency do not really have any descriptions. If you have a Herbalism Kit it is used when you "identify or apply herbs." Wow, how helpful. So if I want to heal someone by using herbs, how many HP can I heal? Doesn't say. If I want to remove a condition like exhausted by giving someone an all-natural Red Bull, can I and what's the DC? Again, there is nothing there for "rules heavy" play, and even "rules light" GMs don't have a lot of guidance (for example, should herbs be allowed to remove conditions at all? should herbal and magical healing stack? that's a more rules light guidance on "should you let your players do this or will it screw up the game" the designers could point out).
Also, a pet peeve, tool proficiencies are basically skills and weapons/ armor proficiency are basically skills, but they are not listed with the skills - instead the same basic concept is scattered in different locations. I like more structure in the rules layout, listing and describing similar things in the same place. Makes it easier to find a rule you forget at the table if you know everything skill-like is in the same chapter (and the fact that the pdf does not have a table of contents really, really, pisses me off).
So, looking at skills overall - need a breakdown by DC levels, I think it would be good to have examples of how each attribute could be used with each skill (which might inspire "rules light" players in how to think in each skill in different ways too), put tools with skills (or just make them a kind of sub-set of skills) and fold in the weapons and armor since they are basically the same thing (or should be at least). Some things I would change in the existing system. As is, this is better than nothing, but more skilled and experienced players and GMs who like the "rules light" style will get the most from this I think. 18 skills is at least better than the 30+ of the 3.5 SRD, I do like the more focused skill list. There is fairly good coverage. Using skills at the table though, in particular for mysteries and NPC interactions seems like a problem since there is no guidance on the roll dice vs role-play minefield. Off the cuff I think the skill system mostly sucks, but this was just a first look - next week I'm going to keep poking around the skills and how you'd use them at the table, along with some other checks.
No comments:
Post a Comment