A comprehensive list of use of skills in 5e

[Specter]

So I've been hearing many complaints about 5E's skill system, mainly about the skills being too vague. So I thought we could come together and find as many uses for the skills as we can. You can copy the list below and add more to it or just give ideas and wait for me to (eventually edit this list. So...

ACROBATICS
- Freeing yourself from grapples and the like
- Squeezing through tight spaces without losing movement
- Balancing on thin/fragile surfaces without falling
- Landing on your feet after a fall
- Ignoring minor falling damage, such as falling from a cart
-Tumbling

ARCANA
- Recall lore about magic items and spells
- Recognizing the functions of magic accessories, such as a wizard's spellbook or a warlock's tome
- Identifying a spell in a scroll/book
- Controlling a wild magic item/effect, such as a Sphere of Annihilation
- Disarming magic traps
- Understanding properties of spells cast by others (like knowing that a Banishment spell can be undone by attacking its caster)
- Identifying spells being cast (in my campaigns I use Nature for druid/ranger spells and Religion for cleric/paladin spells, but that's just me)

ATHLETICS
- Shoving creatures
- Grappling creatures
- Going through rough terrain, such as stairs, without losing movement
- Jumping a certain height/distance
- Swimming in rough currents/in heavy armor
- Acting in mid-air

DECEPTION
- Lying (duh)
- Fake crying
- Disguise emotions (such as pretending to like seeing a man tortured)
- Playing dead
- Passing yourself for someone else
- 'Being cool' if seen while following someone

HISTORY
- Recalling lore about families, events, places and heraldry
- Remembering anniversaries of important happenings
- Telling when/where a certain item was made
- Noticing a person's origins based on their looks or customs

INSIGHT
- Identifying whether someone is being deceitful or evasive in answering
- Noticing what a person plans by what they're doing
- Telling if someone is following you rather than just going in the same direction
- Perceiving if someone is being mentally dominated
- Getting the meaning of underlying messages

INTIMIDATION
- Intimidating (duh) someone into doing what you want
- Torturing someone
Taunting someone into violence

INVESTIGATION
- Searching someone (dead or alive) or an area (unlike Perception, this is made for clues or deductions that mere sight fail)
- Seeing through illusions
- Finding more about rumors
- Locating someone in an urban environment
- Searching for specific information in books/libraries

MEDICINE
- Stabilizing someone
- Noticing a certain disease in someome
- Providing long-term treatment
- Knowing the body's limits related to a certain physical activity
- Knowing the dosages and uses for natural healing items
- Dissecting a body, or removing something from it

NATURE
- Recalling lore about beasts, plants, terrain, types of vegetation and weather
- Knowing what plants are needed to make certain compounds/potions
- Identifying poisonous/dangerous food
- Harvesting poisons from plants/beasts
- Detecting strange weather changes

PERCEPTION
- Spotting/hearing hidden threats
- Recognizing someone who's far away
- Finding minute details
- Identifying a noise's source

PERFORMANCE
- Singing
- Dancing
- Telling stories
- Delivering a good speech

PERSUASION
- Convincing someone to do what you want
- Debating
- Knowing how to behave in a given social setting
- Flattering someone
- Seducing someone

RELIGION
- Recalling lore about deities, temples and rituals
- Performing a ritual according to specification
- Knowing what would be offensive to a certain faith

SLEIGHT OF HAND
- Stealing from people without being noticed
- Juggling
- Putting something on someone without being noticed
- Picking a weapon from the air (such as from a disarmed foe)
- Concealing belongings in yourself
- Performing gestures or messages without being noticed (perhaps even somatic components, according to the DM)

STEALTH
- Hiding
- Moving without being heard
- Mingling in a crowd
- Following someone

SURVIVAL
- Tracking
- Foraging food
- Hunting wild game
- Protecting yourself from weather/terrain hazards such as sunburn and mosquitoes
- Finding water
- Knowing which way is north
- Avoid getting lost
- Making a decent campsite in extreme conditions

----
This is obviously not finished, please add more.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So I've been hearing many complaints about 5E's skill system, mainly about the skills being too vague. So I thought we could come together and find as many uses for the skills as we can. You can copy the list below and add more to it or just give ideas and wait for me to (eventually edit this list. So...
This is not, I believe, what people mean by "vague." It's less a question of "what does Acrobatics mean?" and more "what can I do with a DC 20 Athletics check?"

[Rysto]

Anyone else think that it's telling that the OP completely forgot about the Medicine skill?

[Belac93]

Arcana or Religion should also give information on magical creatures.

[Kryx]

ACROBATICS
- Freeing yourself from grapples, ropes and the like
- Landing on your feet after a fall
- Ignoring minor falling damage, such as falling from a cart

3/6 of your first skill seem incorrect which does not inspire confidence.
Escaping from ropes is specifically a standard dexterity check that acrobatics does not apply to: "Wriggle free of bonds" -PHB 177
The other 2 do not seem to be listed in the things that acrobatics can do in the PHB:


Acrobatics. Your Dexterity (Acrobatics) check covers your attempt to stay on your feet in a tricky situation, such as when you're trying to run across a sheet of ice, balance on a tightrope, or stay upright on a rocking ship's deck. The DM might also call for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to see if you can perform acrobatic stunts, including dives, rolls, somersaults, and flips.

The goal of this list seems nice, but from what I can see many items are not RAW.

[Cybren]

I don't think there's any "RAW" set of criteria for an exhaustive list of what a skill can and can't do, just a general notion of the sorts of things a skill covers and some examples, and I believe that's intentional, so they don't have to make 500 skills or continually revise what it is each skill does. For the most part, I think the names of the skills handle adequately their function. You know if you're trying to deceive someone what skill you're probably rolling, for example.

[Socratov]

I'd like to add myths and legends under a successful history check, as well as old-wives tales, children's stories etc.

[Regitnui]

The goal of this list seems nice, but from what I can see many items are not RAW.

RAW can't list every possible application of a skill; was Harry Houdini using Acrobatics when he got himself out of a straitjacket underwater, using a general Dexterity check, or would he have drowned because it can't be done by RAW?

After phoning a customer who ordered books of a "certain nature", I can file a lot of them under Acrobatics, if not Dexterity (Athletics). :smalleek:

Current Affairs likely belongs under History, since as the History channel justifying more and more reality television says; "History is made every day". Geography as a whole, like that which a person would identify areas on a map and plan routes, goes under Nature. Legal affairs are probably Arcana, with History aiding.

[Kryx]

RAW can't list every possible application of a skill; was Harry Houdini using Acrobatics when he got himself out of a straitjacket underwater, using a general Dexterity check, or would he have drowned because it can't be done by RAW?
To wriggle free of binding is specifically called out as not being part of acrobatics. If you, as a GM, want to change that then that's your choice.

But if the OP wants to make a list of things that skills can do he should not list things that he as a GM has changed.

[Ninja_Prawn]

find as many uses for the skills as we can.

That's an insane idea. The list is endless, varies by DM, and doesn't even consider the interaction between ability and skill (e.g. Strength (Intimidation), Dexterity (Performance)). And as Grod pointed out, bounded accuracy and where to set DCs is a bigger problem than not having enough options. I've heard more complaints that there aren't enough 'levels' of skill (by RAW: not proficient, jack-of-all-trades, proficient and expert) than complaints about there not being enough uses for skills.

[X3r4ph]

What about goading and taunting? Obviously charisma based, but which skill?

[Cybren]

Performance, deception, or intimidation, depending on how you accomplish it and your goal

[hymer]

I'm just going straight by RAW here: Arcana can be used to cast from scrolls with spells too high level to cast from spell slots. It can also be used to disarm magical traps.

[Specter]

To reply to who it may concern, it was not my intention to put anything here that contradicts the book, even if I'd houserule it otherwise. As for the suggestions, they'll be added.

Totally forgot Medicine! Haha, it's telling really, since that skill blows.

[RickAllison]

I would put economics knowledge under History as well. History would cover the past trade of the kingdom, its successes and failures, how different ventures have failed, essentially everything that economic projections are based off of!

Don't forget intersections of skill as well. While finding a cure for a disease would normally seem to be a Medicine check, but it would more realistically be Nature (knowing how a body functions to dissect/vivisect it), Investigation (finding anomalies), then Medicine (figuring out what to do with the knowledge you have; Nature is great for knowing about creatures, but Medicine covers applying that knowledge). Of course, I am a fan of using multiple skill checks to accomplish a task.

Some examples we used in actual play were Nature to create a pungent liquid to track a werewolf pack, Survival to create the trap that would release the liquid, then Stealth to ensure it was hidden by Mold Earth (coupled with Investigstion to find any flaws in its cover). Earlier, we combined Nature and Survival to find ingredients for a sleeping potion (magic NyQuil), then Arcana to figure out how to brew it. Probably could have sidestepped all that work if our Druid remembered that he had herbalism proficiency...

[Cybren]

Knowledge of anatomy for one of the demi-human races for dissection is definitely medicine and not nature. I'd let nature be used to find herbs or natural remedies, but only after someone used medicine to diagnose the ailment (or the ailment was particularly obvious)

[Socratov]

To reply to who it may concern, it was not my intention to put anything here that contradicts the book, even if I'd houserule it otherwise. As for the suggestions, they'll be added.

Totally forgot Medicine! Haha, it's telling really, since that skill blows.

just you wait until your medkit runs out of uses and you have a partymate rolling death saves.

suddenly rollin g15 on that medicine check beats any other skilluse.

[Specter]

just you wait until your medkit runs out of uses and you have a partymate rolling death saves.

suddenly rollin g15 on that medicine check beats any other skilluse.

That's assuming all the other medkits in the party are out, since we all carry our own (not like it's expensive). Oh, and also assuming no one has any healing spell available. And assuming we want to take a chance at failure, which we don't.

[prismfalcon]

Medicine is mainly a knowledge based skill (like history, religion, nature) with certain applications (mainly stabilizing people). Most of the applications of medicine in the real world just won't carry over- because, lets face it: One remaining point of Laying on of Hands from a level 1 paladin is superior to 20 points of the medicine skill, when it comes to keeping someone alive. For that reason I'm in favor of changing what the medicine skill does to become more useful, since right now it seems to be the least useful skill in the game. Most of theses ideas will fall under house rules, though I think that most DMs would be likely to allow at least some of them, especially those which fall under roll playing, as opposed to combat. For instance, I prefer to allow players to pick which skill to use in a situation as long as they can reasonably justify how they want to use it.

BTW, while the definition says that medicine may be used to detect disease, dis - ease classically refers to any condition which causes a person to be unwell or "not at ease" from a medical perspective. Thus, most sources include poison in their definitions of what constitutes a disease.


Medicine as information: The skill and knowledge of Medicine has limited crossovers into Insight/Investigation and Nature skills. For instance, a good healer wouldn't just realize that a person is poisoned- they would be able to make a guess at what poisoned them from the person's symptoms (ingestion, venom, parasites, etc). Also, while they wouldn't be able to tell if the problem was caused by a spirit, a divine curse or by malevolent magic, they could be reasonably certain as to whether the wound or aliment is natural in origin or not, if their medicine skill is high enough to recognize natural verses unnatural causes. Certainly a character could read clues as to how long ago a person died, and what injury or poison they died from. Again, the higher the skill, the more knowledge and experience a character would possess, which means that a higher medical skill is equivalent to, say, 20 years as a doctor, and a character with that skill level could glean much more information of this sort from situations. This makes the Medicine skill more useful the higher it is.

There are also certain crossovers into the Survival skill, like the possibly to detect poison or other contaminants in food. This could be manifested by a roll with a certain DC level, which the player could do to allow them to see that the meat has spoiled, or that the potions they just got smell strongly like an herb which (he knows) can be used in small amounts to cure a wound, yet in large amounts will kill someone.

Medicine could give a bonus to information rolls on monsters- relating to the monster's abilities to cause harm: "I once treated a man with ghoul-paralysis," or "My trainer said that giant spiders usually have fast acting venom." This is a good roll-playing benefit to knowledge checks, as someone who's been trained as a doctor or healer would certainly have treated patients who've been attacked by monsters in the past, and so they have a reason to "remember" these monster attributes. Again, more knowledge can be "remembered" for a higher level skill or higher level roll.

Healers and apothecaries should have a knowledge of herbs and medicines. Note that this doesn't help them to find plants in the wild, just use them, which lets them use their environment in between dungeon crawls.


Some possible house rules to give medicine additional applications could include:

Decreasing the effects of status aliments, or keeping a wound from becoming infected (this could be a viable point if you can't heal the party to full health after a battle).

Some people suggested giving a person with medicine some kind of bonus when using med kits. For instance, increasing the number of points healed based on the user's medicine skill, or by allowing the healer to roll 2 dice and use the larger number.

One person suggested that players should be limited to only spending one hit die to recover health during a short rest, unless someone in the group makes a medicine skill check with a DC of 10. If they make a DC of 15 then they can use 2 dice, and at 20 the characters may spend as many as they can. This DC roll could be limited to characters who have a proficiency in medicine- thus encouraging all players to at least learn the basic treatment needed to staunch wounds. This could add to good roll playing, as it's unrealistic that people who decide to make their living by fighting monsters for gold, vengeance, glory, etc, will risk life and limb on a regular basis without even a basic knowledge of how to heal themselves when (not if) they get into trouble.

Note that none of these are useful during combat.


Other uses for medicine could result from completely rethinking the definition of what constitutes medicine. Western medicine is founded on certain tenants which have endured almost unchanged since the Hippocratic oath was recorded around 300 BC. This includes concepts like, "Do no harm," doctor patient confidentiality, don't use poison, don't perform abortions, don't assist a person's suicide, and pass on all beneficial knowledge, but don't give medical knowledge to people who are likely to abuse it. This is generally consistent with what would be expected from a doctor, or a good cleric/healer. That being said, Western medicine is not the only school of medicine, and a neutral or evil character could find additional uses for it. All of a sudden more roll playing possibilities or creative ways to incapacitate someone open up, when a N or E character has points in the medicine skill.

A person with medical knowledge might arguably have advantage to rolls to subdue or incapacitate someone, due to their knowledge of the human body, herbs and medicine, or from experience with people with temporary mental issues such as delirium from a fever. Also, it's entirely reasonable for a doctor to carry a vial of ether on them... and not beyond the realm of possibility for him to throw it at an attacker during an emergency.

A character with the requisite know-how could use slight of hand to drug an opponent's water skin and then return after the opponent is unconscious as an alternative to violence. In fact, someone could argue that a medicine skill is needed to accurately drug someone enough without a risk of killing them with an overdose.

The understanding of what ails or poisons a person could be used to cause instead of cure. An understanding or medicine and herbs would help a lot in that regard, especially considering that most substances used for medicine do become toxic in high enough quantities.

Knowledge of medicine is also knowledge of anatomy, and a thief making sneak attacks or attacks on an immobilized (surprised or restrained) person would likely benefit in some way from an understanding of anatomy. A slight damage increase or the ability to add light bleeding damage or the ability to cause a status ailment like silence could be a house rule option that could take place on a successful melee sneak attack (it could function like divine smite). State the intent and then roll high enough vs. the DC, failure results in reduced damage or a penalty. Maybe add a daily limit to the number of times it may be applied.

Of course, even though some would concede that these options are entirely plausible, some of them may not be playable due to a character's alignment or philosophy. I wanted to include them because it gives people more options in role playing, by using this skill in ways they may not have before considered.

I know that some people will take exception to these ideas, but I hope that this list will be helpful to others who want to get more out of their characters by expanding the possibilities of a (currently) very limited skill.

[DanyBallon]

The skill system written as it is, is purposely vague enough so if a DM believe that in a given situation Acrobatics should be applied to wiggle free of ropes, or that the character could apply Strenght to its Intimidation check. Same goes for skill DC. As it's up to the DM to decide if a character in a given situation should or not roll for a skill check, there's no need for clearly defined check DCs. But I do understand that players used to 3.P and 4e, it can feel like they lost control over their character capabilities.

[JellyPooga]

Medicine is mainly a knowledge based skill (like history, religion, nature) with certain applications (mainly stabilizing people). Most of the applications of medicine in the real world just won't carry over- because, lets face it: One remaining point of Laying on of Hands from a level 1 paladin is superior to 20 points of the medicine skill, when it comes to keeping someone alive. For that reason I'm in favor of changing what the medicine skill does to become more useful, since right now it seems to be the least useful skill in the game. Most of theses ideas will fall under house rules, though I think that most DMs would be likely to allow at least some of them, especially those which fall under roll playing, as opposed to combat. For instance, I prefer to allow players to pick which skill to use in a situation as long as they can reasonably justify how they want to use it.

BTW, while the definition says that medicine may be used to detect disease, dis - ease classically refers to any condition which causes a person to be unwell or "not at ease" from a medical perspective. Thus, most sources include poison in their definitions of what constitutes a disease.


Medicine as information: The skill and knowledge of Medicine has limited crossovers into Insight/Investigation and Nature skills. For instance, a good healer wouldn't just realize that a person is poisoned- they would be able to make a guess at what poisoned them from the person's symptoms (ingestion, venom, parasites, etc). Also, while they wouldn't be able to tell if the problem was caused by a spirit, a divine curse or by malevolent magic, they could be reasonably certain as to whether the wound or aliment is natural in origin or not, if their medicine skill is high enough to recognize natural verses unnatural causes. Certainly a character could read clues as to how long ago a person died, and what injury or poison they died from. Again, the higher the skill, the more knowledge and experience a character would possess, which means that a higher medical skill is equivalent to, say, 20 years as a doctor, and a character with that skill level could glean much more information of this sort from situations. This makes the Medicine skill more useful the higher it is.

There are also certain crossovers into the Survival skill, like the possibly to detect poison or other contaminants in food. This could be manifested by a roll with a certain DC level, which the player could do to allow them to see that the meat has spoiled, or that the potions they just got smell strongly like an herb which (he knows) can be used in small amounts to cure a wound, yet in large amounts will kill someone.

Medicine could give a bonus to information rolls on monsters- relating to the monster's abilities to cause harm: "I once treated a man with ghoul-paralysis," or "My trainer said that giant spiders usually have fast acting venom." This is a good roll-playing benefit to knowledge checks, as someone who's been trained as a doctor or healer would certainly have treated patients who've been attacked by monsters in the past, and so they have a reason to "remember" these monster attributes. Again, more knowledge can be "remembered" for a higher level skill or higher level roll.

Healers and apothecaries should have a knowledge of herbs and medicines. Note that this doesn't help them to find plants in the wild, just use them, which lets them use their environment in between dungeon crawls.


Some possible house rules to give medicine additional applications could include:

Decreasing the effects of status aliments, or keeping a wound from becoming infected (this could be a viable point if you can't heal the party to full health after a battle).

Some people suggested giving a person with medicine some kind of bonus when using med kits. For instance, increasing the number of points healed based on the user's medicine skill, or by allowing the healer to roll 2 dice and use the larger number.

One person suggested that players should be limited to only spending one hit die to recover health during a short rest, unless someone in the group makes a medicine skill check with a DC of 10. If they make a DC of 15 then they can use 2 dice, and at 20 the characters may spend as many as they can. This DC roll could be limited to characters who have a proficiency in medicine- thus encouraging all players to at least learn the basic treatment needed to staunch wounds. This could add to good roll playing, as it's unrealistic that people who decide to make their living by fighting monsters for gold, vengeance, glory, etc, will risk life and limb on a regular basis without even a basic knowledge of how to heal themselves when (not if) they get into trouble.

Note that none of these are useful during combat.


Other uses for medicine could result from completely rethinking the definition of what constitutes medicine. Western medicine is founded on certain tenants which have endured almost unchanged since the Hippocratic oath was recorded around 300 BC. This includes concepts like, "Do no harm," doctor patient confidentiality, don't use poison, don't perform abortions, don't assist a person's suicide, and pass on all beneficial knowledge, but don't give medical knowledge to people who are likely to abuse it. This is generally consistent with what would be expected from a doctor, or a good cleric/healer. That being said, Western medicine is not the only school of medicine, and a neutral or evil character could find additional uses for it. All of a sudden more roll playing possibilities or creative ways to incapacitate someone open up, when a N or E character has points in the medicine skill.

A person with medical knowledge might arguably have advantage to rolls to subdue or incapacitate someone, due to their knowledge of the human body, herbs and medicine, or from experience with people with temporary mental issues such as delirium from a fever. Also, it's entirely reasonable for a doctor to carry a vial of ether on them... and not beyond the realm of possibility for him to throw it at an attacker during an emergency.

A character with the requisite know-how could use slight of hand to drug an opponent's water skin and then return after the opponent is unconscious as an alternative to violence. In fact, someone could argue that a medicine skill is needed to accurately drug someone enough without a risk of killing them with an overdose.

The understanding of what ails or poisons a person could be used to cause instead of cure. An understanding or medicine and herbs would help a lot in that regard, especially considering that most substances used for medicine do become toxic in high enough quantities.

Knowledge of medicine is also knowledge of anatomy, and a thief making sneak attacks or attacks on an immobilized (surprised or restrained) person would likely benefit in some way from an understanding of anatomy. A slight damage increase or the ability to add light bleeding damage or the ability to cause a status ailment like silence could be a house rule option that could take place on a successful melee sneak attack (it could function like divine smite). State the intent and then roll high enough vs. the DC, failure results in reduced damage or a penalty. Maybe add a daily limit to the number of times it may be applied.

Of course, even though some would concede that these options are entirely plausible, some of them may not be playable due to a character's alignment or philosophy. I wanted to include them because it gives people more options in role playing, by using this skill in ways they may not have before considered.

I know that some people will take exception to these ideas, but I hope that this list will be helpful to others who want to get more out of their characters by expanding the possibilities of a (currently) very limited skill.

When talking about medicine, it isn't just healing, it is the science of the body as a whole.

- The Nature skill might identify a plant or substance as poisonous. The Medicine skill will identify the correct dose and/or preparation technique to use that same substance as a stimulant, narcotic or hallucinogen (recreational or otherwise!), or even as food.

- Massage/raiki; for sexy times advantage on a Persuasion check, perhaps...or Intimidation...

- Knowledge of Chi flows/acupuncture (help a Monk re/gain Ki points, maybe?)

- The effects of poor diet
*At the clinic*
Peasant: "Doc! Doc! We're all suffering from a pestilence! Call the Cleric!"
Doctor: "Calm down, son, you just need to eat something other than just porridge"
OR
Noble: "I have a recurring malaise that the most expensive magic cannot permanently cure. Help me and be richly rewarded."
Doctor: "Eat less red meat and more vegetables, drink less wine and take this distillation of garlic essence daily with this cleansing tea and it should clear up in a few weeks."

- A character with Medicine will know the limits of the body and how far you can push those limits before it will start to buckle...or break. Good for physical training, forced marching, extended alertness (see point on stimulants) and other such physical activities involving endurance or fatigue. The knowledge alone might help in judging how soon an army might arrive and in what state, for example, but physiotherapy may also help recover levels of exhaustion faster.

[JackPhoenix]

I've recently used Medicine skill as means to identify certain drugs (the drug in question was magic psionic variant of opium used as painkiller)

[Specter]

I just realized this thread is the first thing that shows up when you google 'dnd 5e skills'. Woohoo!

Added some stuff.

[mig el pig]

I just realized this thread is the first thing that shows up when you google 'dnd 5e skills'. Woohoo!

Added some stuff.

You do know google searches are diffrent for every user?

[djreynolds]

I just realized this thread is the first thing that shows up when you google 'dnd 5e skills'. Woohoo!

Added some stuff.

It's like the list. It's very good.

I let players use skills in combat for an action. Like investigation to see if someone is hiding. Performance by the barbarian doing some sword kata conan style... while the rogue slips into the shadows.

Why not?

[Deleted]

The skill system written as it is, is purposely vague enough so if a DM believe that in a given situation Acrobatics should be applied to wiggle free of ropes, or that the character could apply Strenght to its Intimidation check. Same goes for skill DC. As it's up to the DM to decide if a character in a given situation should or not roll for a skill check, there's no need for clearly defined check DCs. But I do understand that players used to 3.P and 4e, it can feel like they lost control over their character capabilities.

Sadly, the 5e Dev team had a mix up. They said they wanted a vague system but then bogged it down.

Then they broke it by adding expertise.

If you are gonna make a vague system then make it vague.

Something I've been looking into is a game called 13th Age, it really seems like a 5e before 5e game in spirit as two of the devs worked on 3e and/or 4e.




Backgrounds & Skill Checks
Backgrounds represent pieces of your character’s history that contributes to your character’s history as well as their ability to succeed with non-combat skills.

Each character has a number of points to allocate to a set of backgrounds. These are broad categories of experience (cat burglar, for example) rather than specific implementations of that experience (climbing and hiding).

Backgrounds don’t sync to a specific ability score, though some backgrounds obviously may get used more often with certain ability scores than others.

Making Skill Checks
When you roll a skill check to find out if you succeed at a task or trick, the GM tells you which ability score is being tested. Then you choose the background you think is relevant to gain the points you have in that background as a bonus to the skill check.

Most skill checks require you to equal or beat a Difficulty Class (DC), set by the environment you are operating in, to succeed.

Background/Skill Advancement
All your skill checks increase by 1 when you level up. If you want even better skill checks, take the Further Backgrounding feat.

If you just want to move around the bonuses you already have to show how your character is changing, you can move one background point around among your current backgrounds each time you gain a level, or swap the point into an entirely new background, with the GM’s permission.

So if you are trying to balance on a narrow beam, you would roll (note that 13th age isn't bounded accuracy) 1d20 + Dex + Skill Points if you have a relevant background.

Now translating that to 5e...

One of my background is cat burglar, I get proficiency anytime I do Cat Burglar Things (TM).

Figuring out the price of a diamond? Int + Prof
Balancing? Dex + Prof
Thieves tools? Dex + Prof
Trying to negate a creature's grab? Dex + Prof
Trying to figure out which rune to trigger in order to not have the trap activate? Int + Prof
Trying to sell a shoddy necklace at a higher price? Cha + Prof.

There is no "arcana check" there is only ability checks and if your ability check relates to your background, you may add proficiency.Which is similar to what we have now but way more flexible and a lot simpler. The player doesn't have to micromanage their character.

So it would go...

GM: The baron walks in to the meeting room, you see a grim look upon his face as he twists and fiddles with his ring.

Player 1: What sort of ring is it, how expensive does it look?

GM: That would be an Int check, proficiency for anyone with a background related to gems, jewelry, or something similar.

Player 1: I was a surgeon, I have a decent Int but I don't really know much about that stuff.

Player 2: I was a cat burglar, I know my way around shiny things...

GM: You may both roll, but only player 2 has proficiency.

===

No skill system is going to be perfect, but if you are going vague, you should fully commit to it.

Also, expertise should just be advantage or something other than double proficiency... Unless you limit expertise to non-combat related skill checks.

[Pex]

This is not, I believe, what people mean by "vague." It's less a question of "what does Acrobatics mean?" and more "what can I do with a DC 20 Athletics check?"

Bingo was his name-o

[DanyBallon]

Sadly, the 5e Dev team had a mix up. They said they wanted a vague system but then bogged it down.

Then they broke it by adding expertise.

If you are gonna make a vague system then make it vague.

Something I've been looking into is a game called 13th Age, it really seems like a 5e before 5e game in spirit as two of the devs worked on 3e and/or 4e.



So if you are trying to balance on a narrow beam, you would roll (note that 13th age isn't bounded accuracy) 1d20 + Dex + Skill Points if you have a relevant background.

Now translating that to 5e...

One of my background is cat burglar, I get proficiency anytime I do Cat Burglar Things (TM).

Figuring out the price of a diamond? Int + Prof
Balancing? Dex + Prof
Thieves tools? Dex + Prof
Trying to negate a creature's grab? Dex + Prof
Trying to figure out which rune to trigger in order to not have the trap activate? Int + Prof
Trying to sell a shoddy necklace at a higher price? Cha + Prof.

There is no "arcana check" there is only ability checks and if your ability check relates to your background, you may add proficiency.Which is similar to what we have now but way more flexible and a lot simpler. The player doesn't have to micromanage their character.

So it would go...

GM: The baron walks in to the meeting room, you see a grim look upon his face as he twists and fiddles with his ring.

Player 1: What sort of ring is it, how expensive does it look?

GM: That would be an Int check, proficiency for anyone with a background related to gems, jewelry, or something similar.

Player 1: I was a surgeon, I have a decent Int but I don't really know much about that stuff.

Player 2: I was a cat burglar, I know my way around shiny things...

GM: You may both roll, but only player 2 has proficiency.

===

No skill system is going to be perfect, but if you are going vague, you should fully commit to it.

Also, expertise should just be advantage or something other than double proficiency... Unless you limit expertise to non-combat related skill checks.

5e works somehow like this, yet differently.

i.e.
DM describe a situation where the characters needs to get by the guard.
Player: I'd like to sweet talk the guard into letting me pass
DM: ok, that would be a Charisma ability check, and if proficient in Persuasion, you may add your proficiency bonus as well.

or

DM describe the exact same situation
Player: Grog is not to suave but would like to intimidate the guard convincing him that it would be in its best interest to let them pass.
DM: ok, this would be a Charisma ability check...
Player: If Grog take a menacing stance, showing off is muscle, would a Str check be appropriate?
DM: Sure! you can add your proficiency bonus to your Strength check if you are proficient in Intimidation.

In 5e, all skill checks are ability checks and when relevant, proficiency in a skill may let you add your proficiency bonus to the roll.

[Deleted]

5e works somehow like this, yet differently.

i.e.
DM describe a situation where the characters needs to get by the guard.
Player: I'd like to sweet talk the guard into letting me pass
DM: ok, that would be a Charisma ability check, and if proficient in Persuasion, you may add your proficiency bonus as well.

or

DM describe the exact same situation
Player: Grog is not to suave but would like to intimidate the guard convincing him that it would be in its best interest to let them pass.
DM: ok, this would be a Charisma ability check...
Player: If Grog take a menacing stance, showing off is muscle, would a Str check be appropriate?
DM: Sure! you can add your proficiency bonus to your Strength check if you are proficient in Intimidation.

In 5e, all skill checks are ability checks and when relevant, proficiency in a skill may let you add your proficiency bonus to the roll.

Yeah, 5e works similar but sadly the devs bogged it down with a layer of rules that goes against their "vague" skill system (simple, vague, rules-light, whatever).

They seem to have done this a lot in 5e. They are going toward one ideology but try to have their cake and eat it too. Which causes 5e to want to be a rules-light game, but it isn't.

The skill system would be the easiest way to make a part of the game truly rules light (vague, simple, etc..).

[Specter]

This is not, I believe, what people mean by "vague." It's less a question of "what does Acrobatics mean?" and more "what can I do with a DC 20 Athletics check?"


Bingo was his name-o

That's another good concern (and they should at least put aUA out for that), but in 3.5 there were explicit directions for using one skill and not the other. In 5e's books, it's all out in the wind.

[DanyBallon]

Yeah, 5e works similar but sadly the devs bogged it down with a layer of rules that goes against their "vague" skill system (simple, vague, rules-light, whatever).

They seem to have done this a lot in 5e. They are going toward one ideology but try to have their cake and eat it too. Which causes 5e to want to be a rules-light game, but it isn't.

The skill system would be the easiest way to make a part of the game truly rules light (vague, simple, etc..).

5e development wasn't an easy task, as they tried to bring back the feel of older editions (1e and 2e), keep the good from 3e and 4e, be flexible enough to allow different playstyle, be rule-lighter than the last two editions, while being codified enough to keep the players from these editions. And this ambivalence is reflected on these forums as some ague that the rules aren't light and flexible enough, while others don't like the lack of clear definitions of skills and DCs.

They had to develop 5e this way because of D&D history, and mostly, because the last time they decided to try something new (4e) a large part of their community was not pleased and left. 5e is an attempt to bring back those players, hence the focus on nostalgia through their adventures.

Brand new system like 13th Age, Penumbra, etc. don't have this kind of problem and can focus more on developing a game following a clear design philosophy.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I think every issue you could possibly have with a "rules light" system, including DnD style skills, comes from not playing with a DM/GM/whatever you feel you can trust. I've never played 5e with people who don't know 100% that i'm not trying to "get" them personally when i say "let me make some **** up".

[Deleted]

5e development wasn't an easy task, as they tried to bring back the feel of older editions (1e and 2e), keep the good from 3e and 4e, be flexible enough to allow different playstyle, be rule-lighter than the last two editions, while being codified enough to keep the players from these editions. And this ambivalence is reflected on these forums as some ague that the rules aren't light and flexible enough, while others don't like the lack of clear definitions of skills and DCs.

They had to develop 5e this way because of D&D history, and mostly, because the last time they decided to try something new (4e) a large part of their community was not pleased and left. 5e is an attempt to bring back those players, hence the focus on nostalgia through their adventures.

Brand new system like 13th Age, Penumbra, etc. don't have this kind of problem and can focus more on developing a game following a clear design philosophy.

You realize that 13th Age is not a new system and is a mix up of 3e and 4e? It isn't really a brand new system.

I wouldn't say that 5e was hard to make. Getting the "feeling" down in a system is as easy as making it look like something else, primarily 3e, but then again I recall people calling 3e too videogamey and not D&D (which I laughed at then too).

When you look at it, they took 4.essentials and made it look like 3e and then pulled over the stuff from 3e for casters. Some of the problems in 5e relate directly to problems in 4e, Beast Master Ranger for instance (robotic pet).

The hardest part seems to be the choices to make it a bounded accuracy system which is really the only new thing about 5e (you can find a direct correlation to pretty much everything else in 5e when looking at 3e and 4e). Sure they took their time, and got the green light for public play testing (which was mostly a PR stunt), but that doesn't mean it was hard. I understand that people with jobs that aren't "sit down and make a game" would find it hard to design a game, sure, but a lot of 5e is just cherry picking 3e and 4e. Honestly, people like to say 5e is a combination of 2e and the others but everything comes out of WotC items.

People forget but the end result of each edition of D&D has been, since WotC got a hold of it, simplify (or streamline) the previous edition. 3e, 3.5, 4e, and Essentials drastically simplified what came before them. The choice to do this with 5e isn't anything that wasn't expected. Actually, if it wasn't for 4e there would be a lot of hate for 5e. One of the big things that pushed people away, and I'm not joking, is that it "dumbed down" all the rules... Which is something 5e has done too. Not that I think they are dumbed down, just that they are simplified and made consistent but so many others was calling it a game for kids. But then again I heard the same thing about 3e when a few 2e groups I belonged to started trying 3e out.

Though, side tangent, the biggest problem with 4e wasn't really 4e. Wizard of the Coast kinda treated people like crap. Hell, they treated everyone like crap, including other companies which would go on to stop supporting them and become their rival (Paizo was going to support 4e but... Yeah WotC). Instead of going down the path that was already laid out (Tome of Battle, T3, etc...) they decided to force this game that looked different but was actually very similar behind the scenes. I guess they forgot that more people PLAY as a PC than RUN a game as a DM. A lot of people loved it and a lot of people hated it, no matter what your opinions on it, a lot of people bought it and stayed on and got the character generator for a monthly fee that came with a slew of other things (dragon mag, compendium, etc...). I have no idea what they were thinking. Yeah a lot of the rules in 4e are actually present in 3e, but changing the look was a weird idea. Out of the two systems, 5e is a lot more different from 3e than 4e is. It just looks like 3e on the surface and that's what people (vocal minority at least) want. I need to find some heartbreakers around the time that showed what a "3.75" would have looked like if WotC kept the 4e looking like 3e (which boiled down to T3 classes and stuff).

So far 5e have shown that WotC has calmed the hell down, for the most part, when it comes to certain things and miiiight be joining us in 2017.

That being said, it doesn't matter how hard or easy it would be to make a system. They, from what we were told, wanted to create a rules light and vague skill system (which is just a bounded accuracy version of 4e's skill system... Which was a variant skill system in 3e Unearthed Arcana) and instead of making a truly rules light/vague skill system... They stopped a bit early. They bogged it down with excess rules.

I'm actually starting to think that 5e would look a lot different if 13th Age never came out.

[DanyBallon]

You realize that 13th Age is not a new system and is a mix up of 3e and 4e? It isn't really a brand new system.

I wouldn't say that 5e was hard to make. Getting the "feeling" down in a system is as easy as making it look like something else, primarily 3e, but then again I recall people calling 3e too videogamey and not D&D (which I laughed at then too).

When you look at it, they took 4.essentials and made it look like 3e and then pulled over the stuff from 3e for casters. Some of the problems in 5e relate directly to problems in 4e, Beast Master Ranger for instance (robotic pet).

The hardest part seems to be the choices to make it a bounded accuracy system which is really the only new thing about 5e (you can find a direct correlation to pretty much everything else in 5e when looking at 3e and 4e). Sure they took their time, and got the green light for public play testing (which was mostly a PR stunt), but that doesn't mean it was hard. I understand that people with jobs that aren't "sit down and make a game" would find it hard to design a game, sure, but a lot of 5e is just cherry picking 3e and 4e. Honestly, people like to say 5e is a combination of 2e and the others but everything comes out of WotC items.

People forget but the end result of each edition of D&D has been, since WotC got a hold of it, simplify (or streamline) the previous edition. 3e, 3.5, 4e, and Essentials drastically simplified what came before them. The choice to do this with 5e isn't anything that wasn't expected. Actually, if it wasn't for 4e there would be a lot of hate for 5e. One of the big things that pushed people away, and I'm not joking, is that it "dumbed down" all the rules... Which is something 5e has done too. Not that I think they are dumbed down, just that they are simplified and made consistent but so many others was calling it a game for kids. But then again I heard the same thing about 3e when a few 2e groups I belonged to started trying 3e out.

Though, side tangent, the biggest problem with 4e wasn't really 4e. Wizard of the Coast kinda treated people like crap. Hell, they treated everyone like crap, including other companies which would go on to stop supporting them and become their rival (Paizo was going to support 4e but... Yeah WotC). Instead of going down the path that was already laid out (Tome of Battle, T3, etc...) they decided to force this game that looked different but was actually very similar behind the scenes. I guess they forgot that more people PLAY as a PC than RUN a game as a DM. A lot of people loved it and a lot of people hated it, no matter what your opinions on it, a lot of people bought it and stayed on and got the character generator for a monthly fee that came with a slew of other things (dragon mag, compendium, etc...). I have no idea what they were thinking. Yeah a lot of the rules in 4e are actually present in 3e, but changing the look was a weird idea. Out of the two systems, 5e is a lot more different from 3e than 4e is. It just looks like 3e on the surface and that's what people (vocal minority at least) want. I need to find some heartbreakers around the time that showed what a "3.75" would have looked like if WotC kept the 4e looking like 3e (which boiled down to T3 classes and stuff).

So far 5e have shown that WotC has calmed the hell down, for the most part, when it comes to certain things and miiiight be joining us in 2017.

That being said, it doesn't matter how hard or easy it would be to make a system. They, from what we were told, wanted to create a rules light and vague skill system (which is just a bounded accuracy version of 4e's skill system... Which was a variant skill system in 3e Unearthed Arcana) and instead of making a truly rules light/vague skill system... They stopped a bit early. They bogged it down with excess rules.

I'm actually starting to think that 5e would look a lot different if 13th Age never came out.

13th Age is a new system compared to D&D (30+ years old game system) and the designer of 13th age didn't have a brand to deal with when they created the rules for their system. This is where the hard part come from, trying to be creative, when there's share holders that are watching over your shoulder so they won't lose money.
I don't think 5e design goal was to make a rule light system, but I believe that they tried to bring back the feel of OD&D and AD&D 2nd. Both system, while somehow rule heavy, were far more flexible and relied more on DM making decision on the fly. Which is a departure from 3e and 4e where almost everything was codified and DM was applying the rules instead of making decision.

[Pex]

I think every issue you could possibly have with a "rules light" system, including DnD style skills, comes from not playing with a DM/GM/whatever you feel you can trust. I've never played 5e with people who don't know 100% that i'm not trying to "get" them personally when i say "let me make some **** up".

I don't play with "tyrannical" DMs. I quit when I find one. Trouble is, the DMs I do play with inherently have different perspectives on what can be accomplished with the varying Skills and what it means to be Easy or Hard. Naturally regardless of system any two DMs will have different campaigns, but there can still be common rules to guide them. That's not so when it comes to 5E skills. What's the DC to climb a slippery rope while orcs are attacking? Different DMs will give different answers and all of them can be Honest True not trying to "get" the players. My character's ability to climb that rope depends on who is DM that day, not how I create my character.

[DanyBallon]

I don't play with "tyrannical" DMs. I quit when I find one. Trouble is, the DMs I do play with inherently have different perspectives on what can be accomplished with the varying Skills and what it means to be Easy or Hard. Naturally regardless of system any two DMs will have different campaigns, but there can still be common rules to guide them. That's not so when it comes to 5E skills. What's the DC to climb a slippery rope while orcs are attacking? Different DMs will give different answers and all of them can be Honest True not trying to "get" the players. My character's ability to climb that rope depends on who is DM that day, not how I create my character.

If you design your character to be good at climbing, he'll be good with any DM. The difference, is what good is from one DM to another (one DM can say that good allow you to run up a icy cliff, while another may decide that good is being able to climb a wall using a non knotted rope under heavy fire from enemies), but in every case, your character will be better at climbing than a character that isn't. So if you build your character to be good at something, whatever the DM he will always be better than character that weren't designed to be good in the same area as you.

Now, if you're creating your character to be good at climbing and have in mind Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which is perfectly fine and definitively a fun character concept, but your DM is expecting to run a gritty viking campaign, you may end up being disapointed. But the real problem is not having clear DC, but mostly a communication problem. Would you have known before hand, you might not have created such a character, or simply would not have joined such a campaign.

[Pex]

If you design your character to be good at climbing, he'll be good with any DM. The difference, is what good is from one DM to another (one DM can say that good allow you to run up a icy cliff, while another may decide that good is being able to climb a wall using a non knotted rope under heavy fire from enemies), but in every case, your character will be better at climbing than a character that isn't. So if you build your character to be good at something, whatever the DM he will always be better than character that weren't designed to be good in the same area as you.

Now, if you're creating your character to be good at climbing and have in mind Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which is perfectly fine and definitively a fun character concept, but your DM is expecting to run a gritty viking campaign, you may end up being disapointed. But the real problem is not having clear DC, but mostly a communication problem. Would you have known before hand, you might not have created such a character, or simply would not have joined such a campaign.

That's the point! Two games, two characters with 16 ST and proficiency in Athletics. I want to climb something during combat. It's the same something in both games. One DM says DC 15. The other says DC 10. My ability to climb depends on who is DM. That my character is better at climbing than characters with lower ST and/or not proficient in Athletics is irrelevant.

[DanyBallon]

That's the point! Two games, two characters with 16 ST and proficiency in Athletics. I want to climb something during combat. It's the same something in both games. One DM says DC 15. The other says DC 10. My ability to climb depends on who is DM. That my character is better at climbing than characters with lower ST and/or not proficient in Athletics is irrelevant.

On the contrary, the fact that your character is better in both scenarii is all that matter. You're building your character to be better than the rest and it's exacly what you get. Numbers are irrelevant as long as you succeed more than the others.

[Pex]

On the contrary, the fact that your character is better in both scenarii is all that matter. You're building your character to be better than the rest and it's exacly what you get. Numbers are irrelevant as long as you succeed more than the others.

No, I'm not. I'm building my character to climb things. I don't care whether I'm better than others or not. My success rate of climbing is dependent on who is DM that day, not how I make my character.

Some people are bothered that a character with a middling Stat and non-proficienct can do better than another character with a prime Stat and proficienct a significant amount of time because of Bounded Accuracy and the randomness of a d20, but that's a different topic.

[DanyBallon]

No, I'm not. I'm building my character to climb things. I don't care whether I'm better than others or not. My success rate of climbing is dependent on who is DM that day, not how I make my character.

Some people are bothered that a character with a middling Stat and non-proficienct can do better than another character with a prime Stat and proficienct a significant amount of time because of Bounded Accuracy and the randomness of a d20, but that's a different topic.

Is the character you built to be an expert climber able to climb stuff with any DM? Yes
Is he better that anyone else? Yes
Then you don't care if he succeed on a DC 10 or DC 20 as long as he succeed and he's been better at it than anyone else.

Numbers mean nothing except for giving you your relative strength and weakness compared to others.

D&D isn't about beating DC, it's about character succeeding at different task. So if your character manage to climb, bare-handed, that cliff, in order to send down a rope to its camarade, who cares if the DC was 15 or 25?

[Pex]

Is the character you built to be an expert climber able to climb stuff with any DM? Yes
Is he better that anyone else? Yes
Then you don't care if he succeed on a DC 10 or DC 20 as long as he succeed and he's been better at it than anyone else.

Numbers mean nothing except for giving you your relative strength and weakness compared to others.

D&D isn't about beating DC, it's about character succeeding at different task. So if your character manage to climb, bare-handed, that cliff, in order to send down a rope to its camarade, who cares if the DC was 15 or 25?

I care because in one game I can do it and another game I can't when the characters are the same in one particular instance of equal creation. Having my Cleric be able to climb a slippery rope when orcs are attacking while my Paladin in another game can't do that as easily despite both having the same strength and proficiency is a big deal bother to me. This goes for any skill, probably even more so for knowledge skills and being able to identify monsters.

[Beleriphon]

I care because in one game I can do it and another game I can't when the characters are the same in one particular instance of equal creation. Having my Cleric be able to climb a slippery rope when orcs are attacking while my Paladin in another game can't do that as easily despite both having the same strength and proficiency is a big deal bother to me. This goes for any skill, probably even more so for knowledge skills and being able to identify monsters.

I can understand that, but the important thing with 5E is that different tasks in different games are going to be different difficulties. Its frustrating, but it means the DM is setting the difficulty for any given tasks, not the game designers. So in a high octane action adventure game that climb check is inherently going to be lower than a game where climbing presents a very real risk of failure.