Do druids/wilderness characters get too few skill proficiencies?

[Boci]

So I saw a picture of a drow druid girl and decided to make one. Not the best race class combination, but I found it interesting. Fairly standard backstory for a drow PC, everything is going well, then I get to skills. For druids that's:

Skills: Choose two from Arcana, Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Nature, Perception, Religion, and Survival

Okay, so I need nature, survival and animal handling, kinda hard to imagine a druid without those, and I feel medicine is something most druids should know too. But that's four. Which is what the class gives me, plus my background skills. That all I get. I have none left with which to represent her life before being a druid. Half-elves are by far my favorite race, and if she were a half-elf this would be no problem, as I'd have 2 additional proficiencies and so I wouldn't need to use my background skills just to get what most druids should be good at. But this is a drow, not a half-elf.

Am I overvalueing these four skills as a imagined core competency for most druids? Or is the base allotment of skill proficiencies not enough for some characters? I haven't noticed this problem with others, and it does seem that there are a lot of wilderness skills, so maybe its only for druids. Rangers get one additional proficiency, but then they would also likely almost required to take stealth.

What do you folks thing?

[Contrast]

Don't forget that having a decent stat in something + Guidance is basically as good as proficiency for most of the levels that people generally play at.

I also don't personally see Medicine as being intrinsically tied to being a druid though obviously it may be relevant to your particular character. Nature as well is more about book learning - I can definitely see a druid who had never left their own little forest having a poor Nature score (indeed I play with one - it is a source of great amusement how he doesn't know the names of the animals he wildshapes into). Survival also depends on exactly how you're imaginging your druid - grew up in the wilderness? Sure. Grew up in a druidic enclave? Maybe not - they can rely on goodberries and other magic to cover more mundane survival skills. Why do you need to learn to build a campfire when you can just gesture one into existance after all.

[nickl_2000]

I think that Druids don't need as many skills because they have nature themed magic to do things.


Animal Friendship and Beast Bond replace Animal Handling
Create Food and Water, Goodberry, Detect Disease and Poison replace nature checks
Create Food and Water, Goodberry, Detect Disease and Poison replace survival check
Cure Wounds, Healing Spirit, Healing Word, and Restorations replace medicine


You get a whole lot of overlap from what the skills do and what the spells do. Honestly I think that is one of the ways the differentiate a Ranger from a Druid. Rangers gets more skills, but less magic.

[Boci]

Don't forget that having a decent stat in something + Guidance is basically as good as proficiency for most of the levels that people generally play at.

That's one solution, especially since 3 out of the 4 skills are wisdom based.


I also don't personally see Medicine as being intrinsically tied to being a druid though obviously it may be relevant to your particular character.

I see knowing how to treat wounds and cure ailments as a fairly common ability for wilderness characters as a whole. Self-sufficiencty is important when you don't live with others.


Nature as well is more about book learning - I can definitely see a druid who had never left their own little forest having a poor Nature score (indeed I play with one - it is a source of great amusement how he doesn't know the names of the animals he wildshapes into).

The players Handbook says nature "lore about terrain, plants and animals, the weather, and natural cycles." That seems like something the majority of druids should know, even if they've never left the forest.


Survival also depends on exactly how you're imaginging your druid - grew up in the wilderness? Sure.

That's a fair point, but not helpful for this character as she did spend some years alone.


I think that Druids don't need as many skills because they have nature themed magic to do things.


Animal Friendship and Beast Bond replace Animal Handling
Create Food and Water, Goodberry, Detect Disease and Poison replace nature checks
Create Food and Water, Goodberry, Detect Disease and Poison replace survival check
Cure Wounds, Healing Spirit, Healing Word, and Restorations replace medicine


None of those are cantrips, and a 1st level druid only has two 1st level spells per day. It seems like most would need to pick up those skills just because they're run out of spell on enough days that it will come up. Plus, what did they do before they learned magic? My assumption at least is a druid would only be able to cast 1st level spells after a few years of living in the wild.

[Contrast]

The players Handbook says nature "lore about terrain, plants and animals, the weather, and natural cycles." That seems like something the majority of druids should know, even if they've never left the forest.

There's a difference between knowing your local forest really well (blue flowers bloom here in spring but some years there are none) and more in depth knowledge of nature (bluebells bloom here due to the particular soil and shade conditions but may be killed off by an early cold snap). If your character background includes formal learning about that stuff then it does seem like a good choice of class or background skill, yes.


That's a fair point, but not helpful for this character as she did spend some years alone.

Sounds like a good candidate for a background skill then :smalltongue:


That said, if you're concerned you may want to consider trying to create a custom background feature with your DM to cover some of these things. Something akin to the Outlander or Uthgardt Heritage features to cover some of the things you're concerned aren't being covered as part of your proficiencies.

[da newt]

Barbarian = 2 skills
Bard = 3
Cleric = 2
Druid = 2
Fighter = 2
Monk = 2
Paladin = 2
Ranger = 3
Rogue = 4
Sorc = 2
Warlock = 2
Wizard = 2

Only the Bard, Rogue, and Ranger get more than 2 skills. Why should the Druid get more than all the other classes? The Druid class doesn't need any more buffing, and they can spam self GUIDANCE from lvl 1 ...

[Boci]

There's a difference between knowing your local forest really well (blue flowers bloom here in spring but some years there are none) and more in depth knowledge of nature (bluebells bloom here due to the particular soil and shade conditions but may be killed off by an early cold snap). If your character background includes formal learning about that stuff then it does seem like a good choice of class or background skill, yes.

"Knowing your local forest well" though still sounds like nature to me. Sure, you may not know the blue flowers are called bluebells, but theres more to knowledge nature than that. What about "what, if any, are the properties of this flower" and "how likely is it to rain in the next few days". Both of those sound like nature to me, and both of those sound like something that a lot of druids should be good at knowing.


Sounds like a good candidate for a background skill then :smalltongue:

But not the years she spent in the Underdark as a drow?


Only the Bard, Rogue, and Ranger get more than 2 skills. Why should the Druid get more than all the other classes?

Because druids are the most likely class to be a hermit, and being a self-sifficient hermit takes a lot of proficiencies. That said I won't mind if the solution is to increase the skill proficiencies of all classes.


The Druid class doesn't need any more buffing, and they can spam self GUIDANCE from lvl 1 ...

I don't feel like druids should be required to take any one cantrip, nor is it good that they are reliant on magic to make skill checks.

[Democratus]

I think da newt summarized it pretty well.

[Joe the Rat]

Also remember that skill proficiency represents a particular focus in an area - your attribute represents your proficiency in all things that-stat-related. 5e leans into the omnicompetent hero idea - adventurers are broadly capable in a wide range of tasks, and (nominally) have an exceptional knowledge base, represented by the better-than-average attributes. So you are likely already capable with Animal Handling, Medicine, and Survival, due to the high Wisdom score you assigned to the Druid*. You just need to decide if you are exceptional in some or all of these.

If it helps, look at it this way:

Attribute: Your collective ability in all things related to that attribute - native, learned, magically enhanced, etc. Can improve with dedicated development (ASI), representing work in all aspects of the attribute.
Proficiency: Specialization in a subfield - improves automatically with experience, on top of any other training
Expertise (and related double-your-proficiency-bonus-but-don't-call-it-expertise traits): Exceptional knowledge or ability in a subfield. Increases at a ridiculous rate, you scoundrel.

*-So take proficiency in Nature, to offset using Int as a dump stat.

[nickl_2000]

None of those are cantrips, and a 1st level druid only has two 1st level spells per day. It seems like most would need to pick up those skills just because they're run out of spell on enough days that it will come up. Plus, what did they do before they learned magic? My assumption at least is a druid would only be able to cast 1st level spells after a few years of living in the wild.

You have a valid point, but as a small counter-point some of those spells are rituals which can be cast over and over again without using a spell slot.

As for the question, I've got nothing really.

[Amechra]

I mean... the Hermit background gives you Medicine and Religion. You could bug your DM about swapping Religion over to Nature. Similarly, Outlander gives you Athletics and Survival, plus a background feature that makes you truly self-sufficient in a food-and-water sense.

In general, I'd really only say that Nature and Survival are "mandatory". Animal Handling is more about dealing with domestic animals, and you have access to spells that entirely obviate the need for skills pertaining to mundane medicine.

At least you aren't trying to make a broadly-competent social character as anything other than a Bard, Half Elf, or Rogue, because that will eat up all of your skills.

[JellyPooga]

The question is...do you want an archetypal druid, in which case your Class skills plus your Druid-appropriate Background skills have you covered, or an unusual druid, in which case you'll want to take an outside-the-box Background and have to make the choice of what to sacrifice.

Yes, your typical Druid has Nature, Animal Handling, Medicine amd Survival proficiencies. Probably a Hermit.

If you want Stealth and Thieves Tools proficiency, though...that's a little left-field for your usual Druid, bit not outside the realms of possibility. Take Urchin Background and sacrifice Medicine and Nature for it.

[Boci]

The question is...do you want an archetypal druid, in which case your Class skills plus your Druid-appropriate Background skills have you covered, or an unusual druid, in which case you'll want to take an outside-the-box Background and have to make the choice of what to sacrifice.

I just wish there was some room for customization beyond the archetypical. Sacrificing isn't the worst, but I feel it might be an improvement if you could take the 4 archetypical skills and then have 1 or 2 left over for customization.


Yes, your typical Druid has Nature, Animal Handling, Medicine amd Survival proficiencies. Probably a Hermit.

Small "h" hermit actually, since Hermit gives religion. I bring this up not (just) to nitpick but because despite sounding very druidy, it doesn't give one of the 4 typical (as defined by you and me) druid skills.

[JellyPooga]

Small "h" hermit actually, since Hermit gives religion. I bring this up not (just) to nitpick but because despite sounding very druidy, it doesn't give one of the 4 typical (as defined by you and me) druid skills.

I keep forgetting that! It always struck me as a mistale or oversight that Hermits got Religion over Nature, but then maybe that's just the Celt in me assuming Hermit = Weirdo in a cave in the forest as opposed to Ascetic on a mountain or otherwise.

[Zetakya]

I don't think I've ever had quite enough skill proficiencies to do everything I would like to with any character...

[Contrast]

But not the years she spent in the Underdark as a drow?

Out of interest what skill prof are you imagining that giving?

Unfortunately part of the class system of D&D is you kind of have to make your backstory possible to build. I could write a backstory where my character is a 500 year old elf who has learned every tool and intrument there is but mechanically I can't achieve that so instead I just build a bard or rogue and fluff Reliable or Jack of All Trades as their previous training coming through. If you want your character to have had a previous life and don't want to spend a skill prof on it then the background feature is there or perhaps they just didn't invest the time to be truly proficienct/or those skills have now faded from lack of use.


I don't feel like druids should be required to take any one cantrip, nor is it good that they are reliant on magic to make skill checks.

I mean you're free not to take Guidance or use your spells. Then you'll just be in the same position as most of the other classes. Well still in a better position because you skill have wildshape which is very useful for some skill challenges you may encounter.


I just wish there was some room for customization beyond the archetypical. Sacrificing isn't the worst, but I feel it might be an improvement if you could take the 4 archetypical skills and then have 1 or 2 left over for customization..

Just to put some perspective on this while it may feel like you're being constrained, if everyone got 6 skills then multiple people will probably be covering your same 'specialisations' even more so than is already the case and it may actually end up feeling harder to feel like the stereotypical 'druid' with herb knowledge and the like because half the party can do the same thing.

If you want to try and talk to your DM about giving out bonus skill proficiencies feel free but I really don't see the argument that the druid in particular needs a special exemption. With their spell list and wildshape they already have a tonne of ways to interact with the world, I'm really not convinced they need another leg up.

[Democratus]

Indeed.

Difficult choices make for good gaming.

[Sigreid]

My take on it has always been that your skill proficiency represent areas you've devoted special focus to. Your attributes represent the incredibly vast range of skills a person develops just living and the wide range of ways they can be applied. That's why most tasks don't even have a DC and a good number of tasks that might be somewhat challenging but don't require specialized skill focus should fall in the 5-10 range.

Think about it, you as a person know how to do an insane number of things without really thinking about it and the number of tasks you can extrapolate based on your general pool of knowledge and practiced skills is mind boggling.

[Boci]

I keep forgetting that! It always struck me as a mistale or oversight that Hermits got Religion over Nature, but then maybe that's just the Celt in me assuming Hermit = Weirdo in a cave in the forest as opposed to Ascetic on a mountain or otherwise.

I certainly agree. Even circle druids, I would expect them to neccissarily know much about humanoid dieties, they revere nature.


I don't think I've ever had quite enough skill proficiencies to do everything I would like to with any character...

As I said, I'm not opposed to other classes giving more proficiencies too.


Out of interest what skill prof are you imagining that giving?

I was going to make her a minor noble, so Noble background, history and persuasion. But it could easily be something else, its more just I like having some skill from her previous life.


Just to put some perspective on this while it may feel like you're being constrained, if everyone got 6 skills then multiple people will probably be covering your same 'specialisations' even more so than is already the case and it may actually end up feeling harder to feel like the stereotypical 'druid' with herb knowledge and the like because half the party can do the same thing.

I don't mind other party members also knowing about nature, it not about making the druid feel special, its about making sure the wilderness character knowns something about plants, animals and weather.

[Anymage]

I was going to make her a minor noble, so Noble background, history and persuasion. But it could easily be something else, its more just I like having some skill from her previous life.

If you were a minor noble before you undertook druid training, you wouldn't have the same years of training in herbology and all of nature's secrets. Imagining that we were playing in a game with a more robust skill system than 5e, you'd be worse at "trained as a druid since childhood" skills in order to put more skill points into your courtly skills. (Leaving aside how a centuries old elf and a teenaged human have roughly the same number of skills. That's always been a D&D thing.)

Since bounded accuracy and the way it's been implemented mean that most skills have been boiled down to a binary question of having your proficiency mod or not, I'm okay saying that your proficient skills are just the ones you're best at. Skills you'd splash a low score into in a skills-based game can be assumed to just run off of stat mod. The alternative would involve making expertises and half proficiency skills more common, which sounds like extra hassle when simplicity was a more explicit design goal.


I don't mind other party members also knowing about nature, it not about making the druid feel special, its about making sure the wilderness character knowns something about plants, animals and weather.

To take this the other way, your wis mod means that you're as good at survival, animal handling, and herbal medicine as a low level proficient character with a more modest stat mod. Sometimes you get odd artifacts of this (the city-born cleric who spent most of his life in a cathedral is just as good at survival), but those artifacts have again existed through much of D&D history and aren't unique to 5e.

Thinking about this a bit, I do feel like half elves giving you +50% base expected proficiencies can get people to skew their expectations. Assuming 4-5 (two class, two background, maybe one racial) as a more typical setup, it'd be easier to look at proficiencies as the things you're really good at instead of just being the broad range of things with which you show some level of skill. Focus on the things you'd be really good at, not just the ones you're basically competent at.

[Amechra]

If you go with Noble, that means that you have proficiency in History, Nature, Persuasion, and Survival. That feels like it covers all of the stuff for a Druid for me.

You don't have Animal Handling because you don't deal with domesticated animals. That's what that skill is for, according to the book. You have Speak with Animals as a ritual, so you can just chat with them and use your Persuasion skills to get them to do things.

You don't have Medicine because you aren't a doctor - you know how to use a Healer's Kit (everyone does), which you can scrounge up materials for using your mad Survival skills.

[Yakk]

So you want to be a fully skilled member of an archetype and be good at other things?

Well, you'll get a feat at level 4.

[Boci]

If you were a minor noble before you undertook druid training, you wouldn't have the same years of training in herbology and all of nature's secrets. Imagining that we were playing in a game with a more robust skill system than 5e, you'd be worse at "trained as a druid since childhood" skills in order to put more skill points into your courtly skills.

Not neccissarily. In 3.5 or Pathfinder I could have put skills in druidy skills and then used traits or feats to cover life in the underdark, and world of darkness type games more than enough skills points to cover core competency and then have some indevidual flavour for a character.


Thinking about this a bit, I do feel like half elves giving you +50% base expected proficiencies can get people to skew their expectations.

That could be it. I remember remaking a character who had previously been a half-elf into a half drow and finding myself a little short on skill proficiencies.


You don't have Animal Handling because you don't deal with domesticated animals. That's what that skill is for, according to the book. You have Speak with Animals as a ritual, so you can just chat with them and use your Persuasion skills to get them to do things.

This is fair, but then what covers dealing with non-domesticated animals? Surely a character who lived on their own in the wilds would be better to dealing with wild animals than someone who hadn't. Is that nature or survival?


You don't have Medicine because you aren't a doctor - you know how to use a Healer's Kit (everyone does), which you can scrounge up materials for using your mad Survival skills.

This one I don't agree with. If you've lived on your own, you should know how to patch up your wounds. But maybe the above average wisdom modifier covers it.


So you want to be a fully skilled member of an archetype and be good at other things?

Well, you'll get a feat at level 4.

Doesn't really help me at level one. I could also be a half-elf, but given that the picture was inspired by a drow druid, I'd like to keep the race.

[Tanarii]

(Leaving aside how a centuries old elf and a teenaged human have roughly the same number of skills. That's always been a D&D thing.)

A centuries old elf is well into adulthood. Elves are physically mature at twenty, that's your equivalent of a 'default' starting age as a human late teenager.

It is kind of weird that D&D has always kinda had an underlying assumption starting characters are late teens to early twenties teenagers (excepting magic-users). And nowadays if you choose to play an older starting character there's no adjustments any more. It's not like there aren't large numbers of thirty and forty somethings playing rpgs nowadays. We're not all going to want to play a fresh faced 18-20 year old every time.

[JakOfAllTirades]

So I saw a picture of a drow druid girl and decided to make one. Not the best race class combination, but I found it interesting. Fairly standard backstory for a drow PC, everything is going well, then I get to skills. For druids that's:

Skills: Choose two from Arcana, Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Nature, Perception, Religion, and Survival

Okay, so I need nature, survival and animal handling, kinda hard to imagine a druid without those, and I feel medicine is something most druids should know too. But that's four. Which is what the class gives me, plus my background skills. That all I get. I have none left with which to represent her life before being a druid. Half-elves are by far my favorite race, and if she were a half-elf this would be no problem, as I'd have 2 additional proficiencies and so I wouldn't need to use my background skills just to get what most druids should be good at. But this is a drow, not a half-elf.

Am I overvalueing these four skills as a imagined core competency for most druids? Or is the base allotment of skill proficiencies not enough for some characters? I haven't noticed this problem with others, and it does seem that there are a lot of wilderness skills, so maybe its only for druids. Rangers get one additional proficiency, but then they would also likely almost required to take stealth.

What do you folks thing?

I'd consider playing a half-drow. You have the option of taking the standard half-elf racial ability for two extra skills, and you won't have disadvantage in sunlight. You probably don't need a +2 in charisma, but you'll have a +1 in wisdom and any other stat you like as well.

Alternately, start off with a three level dip in rogue/scout, get four rogue skills with expertise in two of them, then get nature and survival with expertise in both at 3rd level before going druid.

Or take both both options: play a half-drow scout/druid and be an awesome skill-monkey.

[Boci]

I'd consider playing a half-drow. You have the option of taking the standard half-elf racial ability for two extra skills, and you won't have disadvantage in sunlight. You probably don't need a +2 in charisma, but you'll have a +1 in wisdom and any other stat you like as well.

Alternately, start off with a three level dip in rogue/scout, get four rogue skills with expertise in two of them, then get nature and survival with expertise in both at 3rd level before going druid.

Or take both both options: play a half-drow scout/druid and be an awesome skill-monkey.

I'm aware half-drow would be better mechanically, but story-wise a full blooded drow makes more sense. Its about someone leaving their old life to embrace and entierly new world, and whilst that can work with a half-drow its more relevant with a drow.

I thinking dropping handle animal for history would be enough. That way she has a skill from her old life, learning history as a minor doble in the underdark, but still has the skills expected of someone who lived alone in the wilderness and survived.

[HappyDaze]

Not every Druid needs proficiency in every skill. Some Druids might be quite civilized and have little need to be proficient in Survival (think of Druids that serve rural communities rather than deep woods hermits). Likewise, Animal Handling is for training and caring for animals, and not all Druids bother with that (some are much more into people, fey, or even elementals). And Nature is an intellectual knowledge of things that some Druids just lack despite possessing an innate understanding of their source of power. For those Druids that want to have every skill, they can always take Skilled so long as Feats are allowed.

[Amechra]

To answer your question - I'm not actually sure what the "normal" skill for dealing with wild animals would be. I'm feeling Survival, but I don't really have a good reason for that.

---

Fundamentally, skills in 5e are more like specializations than anything else. "Can I patch up this wounded leg?" is a Wisdom check that anyone can do. If you take Medicine, you're signaling to the rest of the table that your character has special training when it comes to treating injuries and diseases. If you had Expertise in Medicine, you're signaling that your character is exceptionally good at patching people up.

Did your Drow Druid receive medical training at any point? If you dumped her into a trauma ward, do you visualize her smoothly and confidently lending a hand? If the answer to either of those question is "no", then she doesn't need Medicine to do her thing.

[Dr. Cliché]

Personally, I'd skip Animal Handling altogether.

I created a Druid character a while back and I made the mistake of choosing Animal Handling instead of Knowledge Nature. My reasoning was that she was better with animals than with plants and other fauna.

However, on actually playing the character, I discovered that Animal Handling is basically a skill used for mounts and bugger-all else. So far from being a Druid who knew a lot about animals and relatively little about plants, she was just a Druid who know absolutely nothing about either.

[HappyDaze]

Personally, I'd skip Animal Handling altogether.

I created a Druid character a while back and I made the mistake of choosing Animal Handling instead of Knowledge Nature. My reasoning was that she was better with animals than with plants and other fauna.

However, on actually playing the character, I discovered that Animal Handling is basically a skill used for mounts and bugger-all else. So far from being a Druid who knew a lot about animals and relatively little about plants, she was just a Druid who know absolutely nothing about either.

Animal Handling can also be used for other trained animals, like guard dogs or even more exotic beasts if such are part of the setting. For example, the Eberron setting has a whole Dragonmarked House that is based on providing trained beasts for various purposes, and Animal Handling is the skill that enables you to make the best use of them.

[Dr. Cliché]

Animal Handling can also be used for other trained animals, like guard dogs or even more exotic beasts if such are part of the setting. For example, the Eberron setting has a whole Dragonmarked House that is based on providing trained beasts for various purposes, and Animal Handling is the skill that enables you to make the best use of them.

I know it technically has other uses. But from a practical standpoint it's really not worth it unless you're using a mount (or intending to buy and make heave use of guard dogs or such).

[Boci]

Fundamentally, skills in 5e are more like specializations than anything else. "Can I patch up this wounded leg?" is a Wisdom check that anyone can do. If you take Medicine, you're signaling to the rest of the table that your character has special training when it comes to treating injuries and diseases. If you had Expertise in Medicine, you're signaling that your character is exceptionally good at patching people up.

Did your Drow Druid receive medical training at any point? If you dumped her into a trauma ward, do you visualize her smoothly and confidently lending a hand? If the answer to either of those question is "no", then she doesn't need Medicine to do her thing.

See the problem with this is, at level 1 proficiency is a +2 to the roll. That makes it really hard for me to consider it a specialization and not just a dabbling.


Personally, I'd skip Animal Handling altogether.

Yeah I think that's the way to go. Survival, Nature and Medicine, which then leaves plus one to either take one of the more situational skills or a completly unrelated one. Knowledge history for my druid.

[Tanarii]

I know it technically has other uses. But from a practical standpoint it's really not worth it unless you're using a mount (or intending to buy and make heave use of guard dogs or such).
Attack dogs. 25gp each is a steal. You'll need to speak to your DM about what kind of action and check is required to get the to attack, how specifically you can target enemies with them, and how they're controlled (if at all) once you slip leash.

[Addaran]

If you'd prefer the stats of half-elf, a lot of DMs would probably let you use them even for a full drow character.

Regarding medicine, it's often a really bad skill to have mechanically. Even if you don't have healing magic. The stabilization DC is only 10 and you often can re-try. If you have a healing kit, you just pass automatically. Most other situations ( diseases, poison that isn't just instant damage) don't happen that often or (broken legs, amputations) don't have any rules to it.

For a character who used to be alone, it's not even that useful cause medicine is often something you do on unconscious or very weakened person, or that you'd can't really do on yourself (stitches on your back/head, broken arm, etc)

[Ashrym]

See the problem with this is, at level 1 proficiency is a +2 to the roll. That makes it really hard for me to consider it a specialization and not just a dabbling.



Yeah I think that's the way to go. Survival, Nature and Medicine, which then leaves plus one to either take one of the more situational skills or a completly unrelated one. Knowledge history for my druid.

I wouldn't bother with medicine either. Proficiency is an increased focus or extra training per the DMG. That's how the DMG tells us when to apply it. Druids already have WIS to given them medicine and animal handling. Medicine is used for things like cause of death, blood spatter, and similar forensics in addition to patch'em'up so it seems a bit off for the druid concept anyway.

If you take survival and nature that covers you.

[Devils_Advocate]

See the problem with this is, at level 1 proficiency is a +2 to the roll. That makes it really hard for me to consider it a specialization and not just a dabbling.
That "dabbling" is the small amount of specialization that 1st level characters are allowed.

Not being proficient in a skill doesn't mean that a character isn't good at that skill. As you point out, it's only a +2 bonus; that's less of a factor than luck.

A high-Wisdom character is still above-average at Wisdom-based skills. Lacking proficiency in a stereotypical Druid skill just means being less good at it than a stereotypical druid. Because you had less training in that skill, but more training in other skills.

[Boci]

That "dabbling" is the small amount of specialization that 1st level characters are allowed.

But whilst 1st level is low for a PC is still fairly advanced for the world as a whole, so allowing them only a small amount of specialization when they are already exceptional indeviduals is a little strange. I know I know, D&D isn't a reality simulator, but it bugs me.

[Chaosmancer]

I feel like there is a massive point being missed, and while it makes sense, it also irritates me because if the game had been done better, this would come up more.

Druid's are automatically proficient in Herbalism Kits.

Now, according to Xanathar's Tool rules that covers all this:

Proficiency with an herbalism kit allows you to identify plants and safely collect their useful elements.

Components. An herbalism kit includes pouches to store herbs, clippers and leather gloves for collecting plants, a mortar and pestle, and several glass jars.

Arcana. Your knowledge of the nature and uses of herbs can add insight to your magical studies that deal with plants and your attempts to identify potions.

Investigation. When you inspect an area overgrown with plants, your proficiency can help you pick out details and clues that others might miss.

Medicine. Your mastery of herbalism improves your ability to treat illnesses and wounds by augmenting your methods of care with medicinal plants.

Nature and Survival. When you travel in the wild, your skill in herbalism makes it easier to identify plants and spot sources of food that others might overlook.

Identify Plants. You can identify most plants with a quick inspection of their appearance and smell.

Herbalism Kit
Activity DC
Find plants 15
Identify poison 20



So, what can we glean from this.

All Druids know plants. You can identify any plant with a quick inspection, you are good at finding edible plants.

You can also make medicines (herbalism kits allow you to make Healing Potions and Healer's Kits) and while you might struggle with surgery or setting broken bones, you can whip up an antibiotic or a salve easily enough. You even have some experience with poisons.


Now, this doesn't obviate the need for Survival or Nature really. I'd still expect a druid to be a decent tracker and to be able to tell the weather and identify fey. But, I think this helps a lot, because Herbalism covers a big area in what we can expect from a Druid.

[Devils_Advocate]

Let me amend my statement: Skill proficiencies are the small amount of specialization that 5E characters in general are allowed to have in specific skills. Even at high levels, they're not really anything to write home about for most characters. As someone put it in another thread, in 5E you need to be a Rogue or a Bard to be really exceptionally good at anything but combat and/or magic.

And changing that would require increasing proficiency bonuses, not granting more skill proficiencies. Giving everyone a piddly bonus in many skills would make characters less specialized, not more.

It's easy to imagine that there probably are NPCs in the setting who really are especially competent at wilderness survival stuff in general. It's also easy to imagine that those characters generally are not druids, because druids have to learn religious teachings and Druidic and how to cast spells and so on, leaving them less time to learn that stuff. And less incentive, because they have magic to take care of things! They're, like, the Wizard to the Ranger's Fighter or Rogue, y'know?

[Nagog]

There's a difference between knowing your local forest really well (blue flowers bloom here in spring but some years there are none) and more in depth knowledge of nature (bluebells bloom here due to the particular soil and shade conditions but may be killed off by an early cold snap). If your character background includes formal learning about that stuff then it does seem like a good choice of class or background skill, yes.


I think what the OP is saying here isn't necessarily the book learning type things you're referencing, but knowledge and the like one would gain by living there for a long time. Local knowledge, if you will. Looking at the sky and plants and knowing enough about them to create things like herbal tonics, knowing the subtle reactions a plant has to a shift in atmospheric pressure that implies rain is on the way. Knowing how animals react to different stimuli, and how observations of the wildlife around them can tell them about more in the area than they can see with their eyes. All of that would be intelligence based, as it's facts you know, but not necessarily learned from a book. Especially with a lower Int modifier, proficiency in Nature makes loads of sense.