Post-Tashas Skills

[RSP]

Was just thinking on this: now that 5e has detached Racial bonuses for attributes, why do we still have limited skills for classes?

I’m not a huge fan of the limited skills list to begin with, but post-Tashas, it makes even less sense.

If the default is now “PCs are extraordinary examples of people in-world”, or some such, and Gnomes can start with 20 Str, why can’t a Wizard or Sorc have Stealth?

Yes, a few classes seem like they should have a default skill (Druids and Nature, Wizards and Arcana, Clerics and Religion), but they’re hardly necessary, and even pre-Tashas, you weren’t mandated to take those; however, you were prevented from taking other skills.

Just curious what the forum’s thoughts are, particularly with the philosophy change shown in Tasha’s.

[Amnestic]

They can.

Just put it in your background.

[Droppeddead]

Was just thinking on this: now that 5e has detached Racial bonuses for attributes, why do we still have limited skills for classes?

Because there is a huge difference between individuals of the same race but the training that people recieve "on the job" tends to be quite similar.


I’m not a huge fan of the limited skills list to begin with, but post-Tashas, it makes even less sense.

In some ways it actually makes more sense since it ties the things you are good at to what you're actually doing and are trained in. Remember that abilities isn't *just* the limits of your person but also represents your general training and knowledge. A Goliath Wizard gets their Int +2 partly from their Wizard studies.


If the default is now “PCs are extraordinary examples of people in-world”, or some such, and Gnomes can start with 20 Str, why can’t a Wizard or Sorc have Stealth?
Well, they can. There's a slew of races and backgrounds that can pick Stealth as a starting proficiency. Even those races who can't can still get a high dex, representing the wizard's ability to sneak. Or, you know, Wizards ten dto have magical means t be sneaky. :)


Yes, a few classes seem like they should have a default skill (Druids and Nature, Wizards and Arcana, Clerics and Religion), but they’re hardly necessary, and even pre-Tashas, you weren’t mandated to take those; however, you were prevented from taking other skills.

Just curious what the forum’s thoughts are, particularly with the philosophy change shown in Tasha’s.

Well, the change in Tasha's was to make sure that every race is (more) viable for every class, not to get rid of the class system. Personally I think it makes sense that classes have their "favoured" proficiencies. It makes sense in a class-based system like D&D. There is still enough leeway to get other skills if you really want them but a "free for all" wouldn't really work.

[RSP]

They can.

Just put it in your background.

To an extent, but I was referring to the restrictiveness of class lists for skills. Sorcerers can only be two of six skills proficient; because that’s apparently part of having a particular bloodline. Yet, being an Elf no longer means you’re a little more dexterous.

Likewise, a Fighter could have learned History while training with every weapon and armor, but not about Religion. But Dwarves aren’t necessarily hardy.

Basically, Tasha’s is saying characters can have variations of body development, but no variation in how they learned their craft; even though they acknowledge there’s no set way to learn a particular class (like the Wizard who chooses not to take Arcana).

[Silly Name]

5e in general dropped the ball hard on skills and tool proficiencies. It's a very underdeveloped subsystem, and contrary to the rest of the game you're pretty much locked into the choices you make at character generation, heavily restricting customisation, and some tool proficiencies are so situational you may never bother picking them, until the day they would have been useful and nobody in the party has proficiency with land vehicles or whatever.

I'd say it's fine for there to be class skills - they represent what your class is good at outside of their combat role, and you have backgrounds to round out your skillset. It's just a very unsatisfying system once it's actually in play.

I think Tasha's is a step in the right direction to drop racial ability modifiers altogether and focus on actual features that are interesting and change how you play your character, rather than a bland and boring +1 to a stat. Skills are on a different plane since they serve to explain what your character can do rather than what they are, and need to be reworked from the ground up and get attached to an actual system for exploration and social interaction.

One possible quick-fix would be to let characters pick "cross-class skills" somehow, like back in 3rd edition (where you simply needed to invest double the skill points, but that had its own problems for classes with few skill points). They only add half their proficiency bonus on those skills, rounded up, representing that they haven't had the chance to properly focus on them due to the nature of their training, but still picked up basic competency.

[RSP]

Because there is a huge difference between individuals of the same race but the training that people recieve "on the job" tends to be quite similar.


But there is no standard training path for PC classes. My character could be a Cleric with no knowledge of Religion, or a Druid with no knowledge of Nature.

The system already allows for not following the standard ideas; it just prohibits, for some reason, how far you can go.

I get that Backgrounds are meant to be flexible (which I like), but it seems odd they unteathered Races and Ability Scores, but left this for classes.

I’m not sure what the reasoning is behind the RAW Investigation and Insight proficient Wizard; who apparently learned how to spot a secret door, or notice deception, while studying magic. Yet it’s implausible to have that Wizard learn to hide a door (Stealth) or be deceptive (Deception) while similarly studying magic.

[OldTrees1]

But there is no standard training path for PC classes. My character could be a Cleric with no knowledge of Religion, or a Druid with no knowledge of Nature.

The system already allows for not following the standard ideas; it just prohibits, for some reason, how far you can go.

I get that Backgrounds are meant to be flexible (which I like), but it seems odd they unteathered Races and Ability Scores, but left this for classes.

I’m not sure what the reasoning is behind the RAW Investigation and Insight proficient Wizard; who apparently learned how to spot a secret door, or notice deception, while studying magic. Yet it’s implausible to have that Wizard learn to hide a door (Stealth) or be deceptive (Deception) while similarly studying magic.

It is odd how they untethered X but did not untether Y? That sounds like a question about should they untether Z. They have not untethered spell lists either.

With custom backgrounds and class skill lists being 1/3rd of the entire list, you will generally be able to pick freely if the character concept is even remotely related to the class theme. In odd cases where you are using a Sorcerer to represent a Priest with less martial themes than a Cleric, you might only get 3 of your top 4 choices. So you already have a great deal of customization. And in those odd cases you are encourages to work with your DM.


Sorcerers and Wizards can have Stealth. Add it to the background.
Fighters can have Religion. Add it to the background.


So WotC probably felt like there was nothing they needed to do with regards to skills. Maybe they will change their mind in 6E.

PS: I do hope they bring back skill points/ranks so I can customize how proficient my character is in each skill and how that balance might shift as they develop. Making most of the choices at 1st level (even on a Rogue) seems weird.

[Droppeddead]

To an extent, but I was referring to the restrictiveness of class lists for skills. Sorcerers can only be two of six skills proficient; because that’s apparently part of having a particular bloodline. Yet, being an Elf no longer means you’re a little more dexterous.
No, it has nothing to do with "having a particular bloodline". You could, in theory, have a draconic bloodline without it manifesting as you being a sorcerer. The class skills represents the kind of stuff that people of that class tend to learn as they go along. That's also why you get to choose from a list rather than a fixed set.


Likewise, a Fighter could have learned History while training with every weapon and armor, but not about Religion. But Dwarves aren’t necessarily hardy.

Because history tends to include such knowledge as tactics, strategy heraldry and the likes. Dwarves are still hardy due to their Dwarven resilience and (in the case of hill dwarfs) bonus HP.


Basically, Tasha’s is saying characters can have variations of body development, but no variation in how they learned their craft; even though they acknowledge there’s no set way to learn a particular class (like the Wizard who chooses not to take Arcana).

Not true, neither of those statements. The variation in learning your craft has been there are along (hence the choice rather than a set list). Tasha's hasn't done anything to change that.



But there is no standard training path for PC classes. My character could be a Cleric with no knowledge of Religion, or a Druid with no knowledge of Nature.

That is correct. You can be an enlightened, born-again religious person or a fundementalist nutcase without knowing what your religion actually teaches just as you can be a protector of nature without actually knowing of the uses of every fungus you step on,


The system already allows for not following the standard ideas; it just prohibits, for some reason, how far you can go.

Again, it's because of the fact that D&D is a class-based system.


I get that Backgrounds are meant to be flexible (which I like), but it seems odd they unteathered Races and Ability Scores, but left this for classes.

It's because they are completely different things. The flexibility of the backgrounds is to allow more backgrounds than there is a need to be in the book. A few basic examples and the ability to come up with your own is all the rule system needs. Moving away from "all dwarves are strong and all high-elves are nimble and smart even though they have spent decades if not centuries focusing on something else" is just overdue.


I’m not sure what the reasoning is behind the RAW Investigation and Insight proficient Wizard; who apparently learned how to spot a secret door, or notice deception, while studying magic. Yet it’s implausible to have that Wizard learn to hide a door (Stealth) or be deceptive (Deception) while similarly studying magic.

Again, Investigation and Insight are things that Wzairds are likely to focus on during their training. If they need to hide things or decieve someone it's is more in line that wizards, as they are portrayed in the game of D&D, use magical means to achive those things. And like previously mentioned, if you want to play a wizard that has ben trained in Stealth/and or Deception you can easily do that by playig a race and/or bakground that has access to those skills.

[Veldrenor]

Again, Investigation and Insight are things that Wzairds are likely to focus on during their training. If they need to hide things or decieve someone it's is more in line that wizards, as they are portrayed in the game of D&D, use magical means to achive those things. And like previously mentioned, if you want to play a wizard that has ben trained in Stealth/and or Deception you can easily do that by playig a race and/or bakground that has access to those skills.

Or play a background that doesn't normally have access to those skills, but has overlapping proficiencies with your race/class and choose those skills anyway. If you make a wizard with proficiency in Arcana and choose the Sage background, the doubled-up Arcana proficiency lets you choose any skill instead. Pick up Stealth and now you're Harry Potter, studying magic but sneaking around the wizard school at night getting into trouble.

Or talk with the DM and customize your background. The rules for backgrounds straight up tell you that you can swap around proficiencies however you like, so long as you get two skills and two tools/languages.

[GooeyChewie]

To an extent, but I was referring to the restrictiveness of class lists for skills.

...

Basically, Tasha’s is saying characters can have variations of body development, but no variation in how they learned their craft; even though they acknowledge there’s no set way to learn a particular class (like the Wizard who chooses not to take Arcana).

The backgrounds literally represent variations in how characters learned their crafts. And the custom background feature allows you to create whatever backstory you desire. Your class only limits the skill proficiencies that you get as a result of being that class. Every player character is still an exceptional being who can be proficient in any skill.

Don't get me wrong, I think the ways in which characters gain skill proficiencies could be improved. I just think it's more of a "let's make tweaks next time we update the edition" rather than a "let's overhaul it within this edition" level of improvement.

[Willie the Duck]

It is odd how they untethered X but did not untether Y? That sounds like a question about should they untether Z. They have not untethered spell lists either.

Generally, this is similar to my response. The existence of change X does not imply that change Y is equally appropriate. It might be, but even then the two could be unconnected.

I think if class skill lists were 100% prescribed (as racial skills were previously), I'd be more compelled to say they need a change. 'You must pick this skill, regardless of the character you envision' is a lot more restraining than 'you are a _____, you should be able to do one of these things.' That said, the entire class system is a contrivance that falls apart with too much prodding, so yes you could want to make a wizard with no knowledge skills or Investigation, Insight, or Medicine (and so forth for the other classes). I guess my final answer is that I'm not against the idea of removing the restricted skill list from classes, but don't see Tashas doing so for races to be a justification.

[RSP]

The backgrounds literally represent variations in how characters learned their crafts.

Not sure this is correct. Backgrounds are what you did before you adventured (and developed a PC class). It can tie in: a Soldier becomes a Fighter, but it could have nothing to do with it (a Clan Crafter becomes a Sorcerer).

A key note from the RAW:

“The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?”

You definitely stop being your background when you take on the Class levels.

So choosing your Background is not how you learned your class abilities: it’s what you did before you started down the path of your Class.

[OldTrees1]

Backgrounds are what you did before you adventured (and developed a PC class).

Why?

Dun the Dungeon Tour Guide is still part of a guild (a Dungeoneering Tourism guild). They even needed to acquire some levels before they could graduate from apprentice to journeyman. Part of that is because their guild has a higher skill floor required for journeyman status. So for Dun the "background" mechanic is used to flesh out the mechanical representation of the character in the present rather than only flesh out the past.

[RSP]

Why?

Dun the Dungeon Tour Guide is still part of a guild (a Dungeoneering Tourism guild). They even needed to acquire some levels before they could graduate from apprentice to journeyman. Part of that is because their guild has a higher skill floor required for journeyman status. So for Dun the "background" mechanic is used to flesh out the mechanical representation of the character in the present rather than only flesh out the past.

Well, again, “Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?” is part of the RAW.

Backgrounds, as I said, can tie in to the class, but they certainly represent what the character did prior to becoming an adventurer (Adventurer being the PC).

[OldTrees1]

Well, again, “Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?” is part of the RAW.

Backgrounds, as I said, can tie in to the class, but they certainly represent what the character did prior to becoming an adventurer (Adventurer being the PC).

But, Dun didn't stop being a Dungeon Tour Guide.

Nor did they start adventuring at level 1.

The backgrounds can represent variations in how characters learned their crafts. Just talk to your GM. The RAW on backgrounds encourages you to work with your GM rather than treat backgrounds as RAW.

Edit I realized I forgot a sentence.

[Mastikator]

Custom lineage, custom background. Next they'll have custom classes. I think the trend is more customization and more furry races.

I don't think allowing all skills for all classes is necessary though, skills come from multiple sources and any class can already have any skill.

[RSP]

But, Dun didn't stop being a Dungeon Tour Guide.

Nor did they start adventuring at level 1.

The backgrounds can represent variations in how characters learned their crafts. Just talk to your GM. The RAW on backgrounds encourages you to work with your GM rather than treat backgrounds as RAW.

Edit I realized I forgot a sentence.

Sure, you can play off what the background is, but the game assumes you’re something more, different and better now: Dun isn’t a tour guide, but a Ranger (or whatever): and that’s how they progress. The RAW doesn’t assume you’re playing a “Noble” with no class levels; it assumes being a Noble is what you did before you became an Adventurer and started learning a Class and gained special abilities beyond what a “Noble” would possess.

[Silly Name]

Sure, you can play off what the background is, but the game assumes you’re something more, different and better now: Dun isn’t a tour guide, but a Ranger (or whatever): and that’s how they progress. The RAW doesn’t assume you’re playing a “Noble” with no class levels; it assumes being a Noble is what you did before you became an Adventurer and started learning a Class and gained special abilities beyond what a “Noble” would possess.

I mean, assuming you didn't lose your title(s), you are still a noble. A few backgrounds have their special features based on leveraging your position/fame/relationships. For example, the Charlatan's false identity is in full effect during the actual game, guild artisan pretty clearly has your guild membership be active and so on...

The background is still part of the character's identity, it's not something that has been completely discarded as of "now", "now" being the moment we begin playing. Dun still thinks of himself as a dungeon guide, and his particular prowess is represented mechanically by class levels in Ranger. But if you asked him "what's your job?" he'd most likely answer "dungeon tour guide".

[OldTrees1]

Sure, you can play off what the background is, but the game assumes you’re something more, different and better now: Dun isn’t a tour guide, but a Ranger (or whatever): and that’s how they progress. The RAW doesn’t assume you’re playing a “Noble” with no class levels; it assumes being a Noble is what you did before you became an Adventurer and started learning a Class and gained special abilities beyond what a “Noble” would possess.


I mean, assuming you didn't lose your title(s), you are still a noble. A few backgrounds have their special features based on leveraging your position/fame/relationships. For example, the Charlatan's false identity is in full effect during the actual game, guild artisan pretty clearly has your guild membership be active and so on...

The background is still part of the character's identity, it's not something that has been completely discarded as of "now", "now" being the moment we begin playing. Dun still thinks of himself as a dungeon guide, and his particular prowess is represented mechanically by class levels in Ranger. But if you asked him "what's your job?" he'd most likely answer "dungeon tour guide".

Dun still is a Dungeon Tour Guide as they guide a bunch of tourists (PCs) through a dungeon as per the terms of the job. Their background explains part of how Dun learned their craft relative to other characters with similar skills. The background also explains their what Dun uses their craft for relative to other characters with similar skills.

Now not all backgrounds need to be this integrated with the character's current occupation. Lux the ex-guild thief is no longer a member of the guild of thieves. But that past shapes Lux's future. It still explains how Lux learned their craft relative to other protectors. It explains which ideals Lux embraces and which Lux dismisses as naïve. It decided Lux's oath before even the first level.

The background can be used to represent variations in how characters learned their crafts. From overt cases like Dun's continued occupation to subtle cases like Lux's fighting style, skillset, and convictions.

[Amdy_vill]

Was just thinking on this: now that 5e has detached Racial bonuses for attributes, why do we still have limited skills for classes?

I’m not a huge fan of the limited skills list to begin with, but post-Tashas, it makes even less sense.

If the default is now “PCs are extraordinary examples of people in-world”, or some such, and Gnomes can start with 20 Str, why can’t a Wizard or Sorc have Stealth?

Yes, a few classes seem like they should have a default skill (Druids and Nature, Wizards and Arcana, Clerics and Religion), but they’re hardly necessary, and even pre-Tashas, you weren’t mandated to take those; however, you were prevented from taking other skills.

Just curious what the forum’s thoughts are, particularly with the philosophy change shown in Tasha’s.

personally, I would like to see a number of free, you can pick anything skills in classes and then just give classes those classic skills. so something like this
Artificer/sorcerers/warlocks/wizards gets arcane
Barbarin get Athletics
Bards get deception and persuasion
Clerics/paladins get religion
Druid/rangers get nature and animal handling
Fighters get athletics
monks get athletics and acrobatics
Rogues get stealth and sleight of hand

[OldTrees1]

personally, I would like to see a number of free, you can pick anything skills in classes and then just give classes those classic skills. so something like this

Interesting, but what about:
The wild sorcerer that does not understand magic. Rather than being proficient with arcana, they think they are cursed.
The barbarian that is strong but not exceptionally trained in athletics. They can get by on raw talent but have no training.
The honest shy bard who knows the oral tradition but focused more on music than on speechcraft / politics.
The priest that doesn't know one lick about religion but will make up whatever they need to.
The paladin that has an ideal rooted in moral philosophy & ethics rather than a religion.
The druid that ... actually I don't have an idea for this one.
The ranger that never bothered trying to train food or keep food as a pet.
The fighter that is not trained in athletics. Are more fighters trained or untrained in athletics? I really don't know.
The monk that ... ok I can think of a monk without either but I can't think of a monk that would refuse either if free.
The rogue that is not a petty pickpocket. Seriously, almost no rogues have sleight of hand.
The rogue that is running for office rather than skulking in the shadows.

[RSP]

Interesting, but what about:
The wild sorcerer that does not understand magic

Sorcerer doesn’t make any real sense to have Arcana at all. Their power comes from their bloodline, not studying the arcane. Really, I’m not sure why they have the skill options they do; I mean because your blood has wild magic in it you’re likely to be deceitful? Or know Religion?

Warlock is similar. Wizard is kind of the only one that makes sense to me, as they’re so based on Int and studying it makes sense they have access to the “knowledge” skills.

[Kane0]

Was just thinking on this: now that 5e has detached Racial bonuses for attributes, why do we still have limited skills for classes?

I’m not a huge fan of the limited skills list to begin with, but post-Tashas, it makes even less sense.

If the default is now “PCs are extraordinary examples of people in-world”, or some such, and Gnomes can start with 20 Str, why can’t a Wizard or Sorc have Stealth?

Yes, a few classes seem like they should have a default skill (Druids and Nature, Wizards and Arcana, Clerics and Religion), but they’re hardly necessary, and even pre-Tashas, you weren’t mandated to take those; however, you were prevented from taking other skills.

Just curious what the forum’s thoughts are, particularly with the philosophy change shown in Tasha’s.

I'll be honest, I don't remember the last time I checked the skill/tool list of a class, just the number they get.

Same as what classes get which fighting styles come to think of it.

[Droppeddead]

Sure, you can play off what the background is, but the game assumes you’re something more, different and better now: Dun isn’t a tour guide, but a Ranger (or whatever): and that’s how they progress. The RAW doesn’t assume you’re playing a “Noble” with no class levels; it assumes being a Noble is what you did before you became an Adventurer and started learning a Class and gained special abilities beyond what a “Noble” would possess.

Not true. As pointed out, you don't stop being a noble (or a spy, or a gladiator) just because you become an adventurer. You might stop living your everyday life like most ordinary nobles do (hanging around court gossiping or what have you) but you are still a noble. And your upbringing as a noble (or training as a scholar or whatever) can certainly be what led you into your adventuring career as a fighter/wizard/ranger/monk/class of choice.

[quinron]

Or play a background that doesn't normally have access to those skills, but has overlapping proficiencies with your race/class and choose those skills anyway. If you make a wizard with proficiency in Arcana and choose the Sage background, the doubled-up Arcana proficiency lets you choose any skill instead. Pick up Stealth and now you're Harry Potter, studying magic but sneaking around the wizard school at night getting into trouble.

Or talk with the DM and customize your background. The rules for backgrounds straight up tell you that you can swap around proficiencies however you like, so long as you get two skills and two tools/languages.

I admire the chutzpah, but I think if you choose Arcana as a wizard skill and then take the Sage background, 99% of DMs would tell you to pick a different skill as your wizard class skill.

I'm with Silly Name. 5e really underestimated how much lack of proficiency in a specific skill can limit your options at higher levels, especially because monsters at higher levels tend to have more proficiencies along with higher ability scores. For example, good luck trying to grapple pretty much anything past level 5 or so if you don't at least have a +4 to Athletics, and good luck avoiding/escaping a grapple if you don't have proficiency in either Athletics or Acrobatics.

[Amnestic]

I admire the chutzpah, but I think if you choose Arcana as a wizard skill and then take the Sage background, 99% of DMs would tell you to pick a different skill as your wizard class skill.


Then "99%" of DMs probably need to reread the background section of the PHB. The customising your background section isn't a variant, it's baseline.



Customising your background
You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5. (If you spend coin, you can’t also take the equipment package suggested for your class.) Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw. If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one.


Backgrounds are flexible and have been since the PHB's first printing.

[PattThe]

At least you have NASA's Skill Trees homebrew system. 2.0 is coming out soon-ish.

[RSP]

Not true. As pointed out, you don't stop being a noble (or a spy, or a gladiator) just because you become an adventurer. You might stop living your everyday life like most ordinary nobles do (hanging around court gossiping or what have you) but you are still a noble. And your upbringing as a noble (or training as a scholar or whatever) can certainly be what led you into your adventuring career as a fighter/wizard/ranger/monk/class of choice.

Not sure what you think is “not true” in what you quoted. Are you saying the game doesn’t assume you have class levels? Are you saying the PC isn’t more, different and better than what the PC’s background is? Are you saying the PC progresses not as a Ranger but now has levels in being a Tour Guide? Is it that you believe the game assumes you’re playing a Noble with no class levels?

Please elaborate on what wasn’t true in what I stated.

Again, your background is what you were before adventuring. No, you don’t stop being considered a Noble in-game - at least not directly through class levels - it does cease being the defining characteristic for the PC.

Once the character gains levels in a class, they are more defined by the class.

As you say, there’s an idea to what “nobles” do, however, that’s no longer an apt description of the PC, as they are now an adventurer of some sort with class levels.

The Background may tie in, in some way, to how the PC got their class levels; but that isn’t required. Nor are the class skills derived from being a certain background (they aren’t attached to the backgrounds at all).

[Droppeddead]

Not sure what you think is “not true” in what you quoted. Are you saying the game doesn’t assume you have class levels? Are you saying the PC isn’t more, different and better than what the PC’s background is? Are you saying the PC progresses not as a Ranger but now has levels in being a Tour Guide? Is it that you believe the game assumes you’re playing a Noble with no class levels?

Reading the whole post should make it obvious but to clarfiy, it was your implication that you stop being a noble just because you become an adventurer.


Again, your background is what you were before adventuring. No, you don’t stop being considered a Noble in-game - at least not directly through class levels - it does cease being the defining characteristic for the PC.

Once the character gains levels in a class, they are more defined by the class.

Not neccesarily, that depends entirely on RP aspects that has very little to do with your background or your class. You can just as easily be defined as "Elsa, the queen who uses ice magic" as "Elsa, the Ice Witch who is also a queen".


As you say, there’s an idea to what “nobles” do, however, that’s no longer an apt description of the PC, as they are now an adventurer of some sort with class levels.

Again, this is just an assumption on your part. It gets really weird when you mix RP elements into a discussion about mechanics.


The Background may tie in, in some way, to how the PC got their class levels; but that isn’t required. Nor are the class skills derived from being a certain background (they aren’t attached to the backgrounds at all).

Again, it can be, if you want to. There's literally nothing stopping it from being so. Either way, it allows for your sneaky wizard or what it was you wanted.

[StoneSeraph]

As you say, there’s an idea to what “nobles” do, however, that’s no longer an apt description of the PC, as they are now an adventurer of some sort with class levels.

Emphasis mine, because it's nonsense. A Noble will have some sway over dealing with the upper crust and holding an audience at court; an Urchin will navigate city streets and tunnels better than the Outlander who knows the land like the back of his hand; the Criminal will flex his connections to the seedier segments of society while the Guild Artisan keeps his business on the level.

All five of the above are Light Clerics of Pelor - the Noble petitioning support from royal houses for the faith's agenda, the Urchin preaching and giving to the downtrodden, the Outlander reaching out to frontier outposts, the Criminal (reformed) keeping tabs on his social circle in case crime rings get out of hand, and the Guild Artisan spreading the word through his works and business dealings.

At Level 1, those efforts may be small; as they develop their reputations as adventurers, the Noble acquires further titles and holds audiences with the mightiest of rulers, the Urchin's heroics and charity make him into a living urban legend, the Outlander becomes a traveling saint who carries the name of Pelor beyond the farthest reaches of the land, the Criminal's influence leads to harsh crackdowns on crime and leads many wayward souls to reform, and the Guild Artisan's works, each embellished with some aspect of his god, spread across all of civilization.

Of course, that "may" be the case; like you said, it "isn't required". Sounds like a colossal waste of character development and narrative potential, though.

[GooeyChewie]

Not sure this is correct. Backgrounds are what you did before you adventured (and developed a PC class). It can tie in: a Soldier becomes a Fighter, but it could have nothing to do with it (a Clan Crafter becomes a Sorcerer).

A key note from the RAW:

“The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?”

You definitely stop being your background when you take on the Class levels.

So choosing your Background is not how you learned your class abilities: it’s what you did before you started down the path of your Class.

I agree that backgrounds are what you did before you adventured, though depending on the circumstances you might not actually stop being your background when you become an adventurer. I agree that it's important to ask why you stopped doing what you were doing before and started adventuring. It's Pixar's 4th rule of storytelling:

"Once upon a time there was ___. Every day, ___. One day ___. Because of that, ___. Because of that, ___. Until finally ___."

The first blank is your background. The last blank (at least during character creation) is becoming your class. A well-fleshed-out character will draw a line from that background to that class, regardless of how unrelated they seem on the surface. Sometimes that line is obvious, as with Soldier to Fighter. Sometimes that line requires a bit more repetitions of "Because of that, ___." You background might not be the be-all and end-all of how you became your class, but it is an intrinsic part of you and absolutely influences how and why you learned your class.

[Silly Name]

Again, your background is what you were before adventuring. No, you don’t stop being considered a Noble in-game - at least not directly through class levels - it does cease being the defining characteristic for the PC.
[...]
The Background may tie in, in some way, to how the PC got their class levels; but that isn’t required. Nor are the class skills derived from being a certain background (they aren’t attached to the backgrounds at all).

The point is that the interaction between class and background can be cumulative rather than sostitutive. A Criminal Wizard can be somebody who quit a life of petty crime after being taken under the wing of some wise master... or they can be someone who used their magic powers to have an edge when stealing from nobles' mansions, and you are skipping town because the law is hot on your heels.

In many campaigns, your background can still be actively part of the story getting told: if we set it in Waterdeep, the Acolyte Fighter may have been given a special mission by the temple of Selune, and she's still considered in service of the moon goddess.

Yes, PCs are "more" than random NPCs, in a strictly mechanical sense. But that doesn't mean their background is to be strictly relegated to the sidelines, something they used to be and no longer are: in some cases it can be the reason you're adventuring in the first place (Sage background, for example, could mean your reason to adventure is to discover more secrets and deepend your understanding of the multiverse), not something you adventure in spite of. The "defining characteristic of the PC" is entirely up to the player: it could be their background, their class, a peculiar trait or goal they have, the fact they carry a specific item, and so on.

[RSP]

Reading the whole post should make it obvious but to clarfiy, it was your implication that you stop being a noble just because you become an adventurer.



Not neccesarily, that depends entirely on RP aspects that has very little to do with your background or your class. You can just as easily be defined as "Elsa, the queen who uses ice magic" as "Elsa, the Ice Witch who is also a queen".



Again, this is just an assumption on your part. It gets really weird when you mix RP elements into a discussion about mechanics.



Again, it can be, if you want to. There's literally nothing stopping it from being so. Either way, it allows for your sneaky wizard or what it was you wanted.

The background is, RAW, “where you came from, how you became an adventurer, and your place in the world.” It defines what your PC was before the campaign begins.

As soon as the campaign begins, it’s assumed the PC is now an Adventurer, hence “The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?”

I’m not sure why this is being debated. Do you really believe the game expects characters to not be adventurers defined by their class choices? Do you really believe the game assumes “Elsa the Queen who uses ice magic” isn’t supposed to be going on adventures, but that their character will be defined by the simple fact that they have the Noble background, and their class abilities will be an afterthought to the campaign?

The fact that there is a way to make a “sneaky mage” doesn’t mean the skills associated with each class makes sense. And more to the point of this thread, if the designers decided that it’s not in the best interest of the game to play with troupes such as “all elves are naturally dexterous”; why does it makes sense to enforce the idea that “Sorcerers are generally deceitful rather than being educated in Nature”? Or that “Fighters aren’t educated in Arcana” (this is particularly amusing as there is an entire subclass devoted to doing magic, yet the class is unable to provide said education).

[Droppeddead]

The background is, RAW, “where you came from, how you became an adventurer, and your place in the world.” It defines what your PC was before the campaign begins.

As I and many other have pointed out, there is nothing that says that you stop being what you were before. And since you yourself points out, it explicitly say that that it's "how you became an adventurer" which includes how you picked up the knowledge from your class.


As soon as the campaign begins, it’s assumed the PC is now an Adventurer, hence “The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?”

And it never ever says "you are no longer what your background is".


I’m not sure why this is being debated.

Because you keep claiming that once your character starts adventuring, nothing about their background matters.


Do you really believe the game expects characters to not be adventurers defined by their class choices? Do you really believe the game assumes “Elsa the Queen who uses ice magic” isn’t supposed to be going on adventures, but that their character will be defined by the simple fact that they have the Noble background, and their class abilities will be an afterthought to the campaign?

Never even implied anything of the sort, so you can drop that strawman any time you want to. But to answer your irrelevant question, in the games I play most characters are defined by their actions in the game and not what is written on some paper somewhere.


The fact that there is a way to make a “sneaky mage” doesn’t mean the skills associated with each class makes sense.

Perhaps not, but it shows that there are many ways to make a "sneaky mage" if you want to.


And more to the point of this thread, if the designers decided that it’s not in the best interest of the game to play with troupes such as “all elves are naturally dexterous”; why does it makes sense to enforce the idea that “Sorcerers are generally deceitful rather than being educated in Nature”? Or that “Fighters aren’t educated in Arcana” (this is particularly amusing as there is an entire subclass devoted to doing magic, yet the class is unable to provide said education).

Well, they don't, so there's that. There are no mandatory skills for any class.

[Silly Name]

The background is, RAW, “where you came from, how you became an adventurer, and your place in the world.” It defines what your PC was before the campaign begins.

As soon as the campaign begins, it’s assumed the PC is now an Adventurer, hence “The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?”

The point is that the game doesn't suggest you burnt all bridges as part of your reason to adventure, since most backgrounds feature some form of connection to this past life as a special feature. The game is asking "what's your call to adventure?" because most backgrounds assume a stable, ordinary life, and adventuring in dangerous locales far away from home with a band of ragtag misfits isn't that.


Do you really believe the game assumes “Elsa the Queen who uses ice magic” isn’t supposed to be going on adventures, but that their character will be defined by the simple fact that they have the Noble background, and their class abilities will be an afterthought to the campaign?

You're creating a false dichotomy. Elsa (the character from Frozen) is defined as a character by how her magical powers interact with her expected role and the impact on her relationships. If I wanted to make her into a D&D character, she'd probably be a Sorcerer with the Noble background, and both those things serve to define her personal skillset, what resources she has in play and her personality.

If I then wanted her to be an actual D&D-style adventurer, I'd then have to ask "ok, why isn't she at home with her sister ruling her kingdom?", but whatever answer I give doesn't mean her being queen isn't a fundamental part of her character for various reasons, just like her having magic ice powers is also important.

In short: how "character-defining" any aspect of a character is is entirely up to the player. It's their decision whether they want their class to be the most important part, or their background, or anything else, or any possible combination of interaction of all those pieces.


The fact that there is a way to make a “sneaky mage” doesn’t mean the skills associated with each class makes sense.

I mean, those are two separate issues. If we wanted to expand/change what skills a first-level character can have access to depending on their class, that's a different piece of game design than "how does background interact with my character concept?"


And more to the point of this thread, if the designers decided that it’s not in the best interest of the game to play with troupes such as “all elves are naturally dexterous”; why does it makes sense to enforce the idea that “Sorcerers are generally deceitful rather than being educated in Nature”?

I think the problem here is that the baseline of sorcerer for skills is "Wizards if wizards had social skills", while their fluff suggests they really should be more freeform because they're the only class who can realistically stumble into their powers rather than having to earn them in some way, which means realistically they should get to pick from a larger list.


Or that “Fighters aren’t educated in Arcana” (this is particularly amusing as there is an entire subclass devoted to doing magic, yet the class is unable to provide said education).

I think it'd be neat if subclasses also granted proficiency in thematically relevant skills (and possibly even Expertise if you already have proficiency in that skill - I absolutely loathe that it's restricted to exactly three classes), but that requires changing what skills are available through classes, and make many subclasses more thematically strong.

I'd rather fix the skill system rather than doing such a patch. As it is, every character has (relatively) the same chance of getting access to the same skills at first level through a combination of class and background, and the real problems start to pop up during character progression to higher levels where only Rogues and Bards get to have any input on improving their skills (some classes/subclasses get some bonuses to certain skills too, but those are predetermined for you).

[OldTrees1]

The background is, RAW, “where you came from, how you became an adventurer, and your place in the world.” It defines what your PC was before the campaign begins.

As soon as the campaign begins, it’s assumed the PC is now an Adventurer, hence “The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?”

"I didn't stop" is a valid RP answer to "Why did you stop".

Dun already had a few levels before they graduated to journeyman and started leading dungeon tours themselves rather than as an apprentice to a master. What changed? They graduated. Why did they stop being a tour guide? They didn't stop being a tour guide. Is it more apt to describe them as a Dungeon Tour Guide or describe them as their class? It is more apt to describe them as their occupation (Dungeon Tour Guide).


I’m not sure why this is being debated. Do you really believe the game expects characters to not be adventurers defined by their class choices? Do you really believe the game assumes “Elsa the Queen who uses ice magic” isn’t supposed to be going on adventures, but that their character will be defined by the simple fact that they have the Noble background, and their class abilities will be an afterthought to the campaign?
I expect the game expects the characters to be defined by their character. For some that is the class choices, for others the class choices are supplementary support for the existing characterization and roles.

I expect the game assumes Elsa will be going on adventures. The game does not assume whether it will be as “Elsa the Queen who uses ice magic” or "Elsa, the Ice Witch who is also a queen".


The fact that there is a way to make a “sneaky mage” doesn’t mean the skills associated with each class makes sense. And more to the point of this thread, if the designers decided that it’s not in the best interest of the game to play with troupes such as “all elves are naturally dexterous”; why does it makes sense to enforce the idea that “Sorcerers are generally deceitful rather than being educated in Nature”? Or that “Fighters aren’t educated in Arcana” (this is particularly amusing as there is an entire subclass devoted to doing magic, yet the class is unable to provide said education).
1) The skill system has the class offer 2 skills from a list of 1/3rd of the skills. It does this knowing you will already have at least 2 floating skill proficiencies to further customize your character's characterization. This is not as flexible as 4 floating skill proficiencies but it is rather close to it.

2) Where does it say Sorcerers are generally deceitful? Where does it say Fighters are not educated in Arcana? Personally every Eldritch Knight I have made has Arcana Proficiency. That sounds like a concrete counterexample.

These factors probably factors into why the designers have not removed class skill lists in the middle of 5E.

3) The argument that X was made more flexible, so why not make Y more flexible, is an argument to make Z more flexible. Why have class spell lists? Or more accurately, why didn't they remove class spell lists already?

[StoneSeraph]

Do you really believe the game expects characters to not be adventurers defined by their class choices? Do you really believe the game assumes “Elsa the Queen who uses ice magic” isn’t supposed to be going on adventures, but that their character will be defined by the simple fact that they have the Noble background, and their class abilities will be an afterthought to the campaign?

"The game" doesn't "expect" anything. The players, presumably, expect everyone to play a well-imagined character in good faith, more than just a gray box of numbers or a class with skills attached.


The fact that there is a way to make a “sneaky mage” doesn’t mean the skills associated with each class makes sense.

Take it up with your DM.


And more to the point of this thread, if the designers decided that it’s not in the best interest of the game to play with troupes such as “all elves are naturally dexterous”; why does it makes sense to enforce the idea that “Sorcerers are generally deceitful rather than being educated in Nature”? Or that “Fighters aren’t educated in Arcana” (this is particularly amusing as there is an entire subclass devoted to doing magic, yet the class is unable to provide said education).

Perhaps it's to give the classes some identity and encourage the players to make substantive choices regarding their characters' background if they're gunning for something specific to round out their identity entirely. "I'm going for an Eldritch Knight Soldier, but the Fighter class doesn't have Arcana as an offered skill... Maybe I can take the Sage background... or maybe I can still take the Soldier background and ask the DM if I can take Arcana instead of Athletics, acting as part of a special battalion."

[GooeyChewie]

The background is, RAW, “where you came from, how you became an adventurer, and your place in the world.” It defines what your PC was before the campaign begins.

As soon as the campaign begins, it’s assumed the PC is now an Adventurer, hence “The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?”

I’m not sure why this is being debated. Do you really believe the game expects characters to not be adventurers defined by their class choices? Do you really believe the game assumes “Elsa the Queen who uses ice magic” isn’t supposed to be going on adventures, but that their character will be defined by the simple fact that they have the Noble background, and their class abilities will be an afterthought to the campaign?

The fact that there is a way to make a “sneaky mage” doesn’t mean the skills associated with each class makes sense. And more to the point of this thread, if the designers decided that it’s not in the best interest of the game to play with troupes such as “all elves are naturally dexterous”; why does it makes sense to enforce the idea that “Sorcerers are generally deceitful rather than being educated in Nature”? Or that “Fighters aren’t educated in Arcana” (this is particularly amusing as there is an entire subclass devoted to doing magic, yet the class is unable to provide said education).

Nobody is saying that characters are not defined by their class choices. Nobody is claiming that "Elsa the Queen who uses ice magic" isn't going on an adventure. We're saying that just because "Elsa" stopped sitting at the castle and started going on adventures doesn't mean she isn't also a queen. Class and background are not an either/or proposition. Both inform your character's identity.

Sorcerers don't have to be deceitful. Just because the skill is on your class list doesn't mean you have to take it, or even that your character has to try to make deception checks at all. Sorcerers can be educated in Nature and Fighters can be educated in Arcana, if they have a background (or some other feature) for it. They just have to learn those skills from somewhere other than their classes. We normally don't associate those skills with those classes, so having those skills suggests something unique and interesting to the particular character in question, which is represented by their background.

[OldTrees1]

Perhaps its to give the classes some identity and encourage the players to make substantive choices regarding their characters' background if they're gunning for something specific to round out their identity entirely. "I'm going for an Eldritch Knight Soldier, but the Fighter class doesn't have Arcana as an offered skill... Maybe I can take the Sage background... or maybe I can still take the Soldier background and ask the DM if I can take Arcana instead of Athletics, acting as part of a special battalion."

Supporting Citations: PHB page 125 gives explicit advice on this.
1) It mentions having the same proficiency from 2 sources results in a floating proficiency.
2) It encourages custom backgrounds, including talking to the GM, as the default.

[jjordan]

Was just thinking on this: now that 5e has detached Racial bonuses for attributes, why do we still have limited skills for classes?I'm guessing, but I think it's because taking away the limits pretty much kills the classes and that rips away one of the core design features of the system. That would, from the point of view of WotC, do a lot of damage to the game.

[Amdy_vill]

Interesting, but what about:
The wild sorcerer that does not understand magic. Rather than being proficient with arcana, they think they are cursed.
The barbarian that is strong but not exceptionally trained in athletics. They can get by on raw talent but have no training.
The honest shy bard who knows the oral tradition but focused more on music than on speechcraft / politics.
The priest that doesn't know one lick about religion but will make up whatever they need to.
The paladin that has an ideal rooted in moral philosophy & ethics rather than a religion.
The druid that ... actually I don't have an idea for this one.
The ranger that never bothered trying to train food or keep food as a pet.
The fighter that is not trained in athletics. Are more fighters trained or untrained in athletics? I really don't know.
The monk that ... ok I can think of a monk without either but I can't think of a monk that would refuse either if free.
The rogue that is not a petty pickpocket. Seriously, almost no rogues have sleight of hand.
The rogue that is running for office rather than skulking in the shadows.

most of these can be covered by talent and not training or the other skills you could pick. having proficiency in a skill does not mean you are professionally trained in something only you are good at it. expertise maybe but you could still run with it as a natural talent and not professional training. you Barbarin has that raw talent, while your wild magic sorcerer doesn't know magic by in their mind, it runs in their blood giving them a gut intuition on it. then you can pick up the other skill your character may want from those free skills I mentioned. Maybe subclasses should give out one skill as well tho and maybe with some flavor text giving you some explanations for your skills outside of direct training.

I do think bards might require the choice of 2 of persuasion, deception, and performance

Both of your ideas for religion do still fall into the relgion skill tho they might be one of those change the stat examples. the cleric would be religion charisma and the paladins would be religion intelligence or wisdom.

[OldTrees1]

most of these can be covered by talent and not training or the other skills you could pick. having proficiency in a skill does not mean you are professionally trained in something only you are good at it. expertise maybe but you could still run with it as a natural talent and not professional training. you Barbarin has that raw talent, while your wild magic sorcerer doesn't know magic by in their mind, it runs in their blood giving them a gut intuition on it. then you can pick up the other skill your character may want from those free skills I mentioned. Maybe subclasses should give out one skill as well tho and maybe with some flavor text giving you some explanations for your skills outside of direct training.

I do think bards might require the choice of 2 of persuasion, deception, and performance

Those were examples where you suggested the class give a free proficiency in a skill that the character would not have proficiency in. I will admit I made the list quickly, but it should show the downside of a fixed free proficiency.

That Barbarian is strong and thus has talent in Str(athletics), but does not have athletics proficiency. They are good but not THAT good. If Barbarian granted free athletics proficiency, then that would be an issue for this character. Etc for the other examples.

That wild mage is a conduit for magic but does not understand or even have a gut intuition for it. Arcana Proficiency would be counterproductive to the characterization of that wild mage.

This is not to say a free proficiency is a bad idea. It just has downsides like all systems. Even the "pick your 3rd and 4th proficiencies out of this list of 6" has downsides.


Both of your ideas for religion do still fall into the relgion skill tho they might be one of those change the stat examples. the cleric would be religion charisma and the paladins would be religion intelligence or wisdom.
Sorry this stuck out. No. Neither my ignorant lying priest nor the moral philosophy paladin know anything about religion. The priest is cha(deception) and the paladin has literally nothing to do with religion.

Sorry that stuck out and I needed to address it. Especially the Paladin part. Morality is beyond religion.

[Silly Name]

Sorry this stuck out. No. Neither my ignorant lying priest nor the moral philosophy paladin know anything about religion. The priest is cha(deception) and the paladin has literally nothing to do with religion.

Sorry that stuck out and I needed to address it. Especially the Paladin part. Morality is beyond religion.

Knowledge about religion is not the same as adherence, however. I agree there is no skill in the system to properly represent being studied in moral philosophy or philosophy in general, but that's because it's outside of what adventurers are expected to deal with: Arcana, History, Nature and Religion checks let you "recall lore about" the subject at hand, and that is an useful tool for adventurers who deal with evil wizards, ancient ruins, strange beasts and mad cults.

Whether your paladin invests in the Religion skill or not doesn't imply anything about their piousness. They may simply be studying their enemies - worshippers of evil deities, demonic cults, and the fiends themselves.

[elyktsorb]

I find it kind of hilarious that there are a few examples of Druid's not knowing Nature as some sort of thing that would never happen in game in this thread, when nearly everytime I've played a Druid in 5E I've not taken Nature. (Firstly because it's Int based, secondly because it's a garbage skill, or the other way around, even if Nature was Wis based I probably still wouldn't take it)

You know what, I'd say let every class have every skill. Here's my reasoning.

Firstly, backgrounds make it so that a character CAN already have every skill. I'm sure there's some areas where there's zero overlap, but that doesn't matter because..

Even if you had every skill you wouldn't use them on every class. If Sorcerer's had access to Nature as part of their class skills.. Would anyone take it? You don't use Int for anything as a Sorcerer, so keeping in mind that your still getting the same amount of skills, (Sorcerers get a total of 4 from class and background, we'll leave race out of the equation)

In what reality are you picking Nature (arguably the worst skill in 5E) over, any Charisma based skill, Stealth, or Perception.

If you really wanted to make a Sorcerer who cares about Nature, why not just single dip a level into Druid? If you're willing to put points into Int at the cost of putting points into Cha, Con, and Dex, just to have a good Nature skill (which most Druids don't give a **** about) then you probably don't care if your making the best Sorcerer and are making something to benefit your roleplaying.

[Amdy_vill]

Sorry this stuck out. No. Neither my ignorant lying priest nor the moral philosophy paladin know anything about religion. The priest is cha(deception) and the paladin has literally nothing to do with religion.

Sorry that stuck out and I needed to address it. Especially the Paladin part. Morality is beyond religion.

IU can see the cleric argument but you can still use religion with how 5e skill system works. and Philosophy is covered by religion given religion covers everything thing on the lore about religions and the ideas of those religions Also know as Philosophy, and in a world where god is demonstrably real, all philosophy would in some minor way have to cover gods.

Philosophy could also fall under arcane, nature, or history as all of these can also touch on ideas of philosophy. Arcane, philosophy around magic, nature philosophy around druids, conservationism so on, and history, the history of philosophic ideas. 5e skill system makes it really easy to cover most ideas with the existing skill tho it can take some leg work to desperate ideas like philosophy.

[OldTrees1]

Knowledge about religion is not the same as adherence, however. I agree there is no skill in the system to properly represent being studied in moral philosophy or philosophy in general, but that's because it's outside of what adventurers are expected to deal with: Arcana, History, Nature and Religion checks let you "recall lore about" the subject at hand, and that is an useful tool for adventurers who deal with evil wizards, ancient ruins, strange beasts and mad cults.

Whether your paladin invests in the Religion skill or not doesn't imply anything about their piousness. They may simply be studying their enemies - worshippers of evil deities, demonic cults, and the fiends themselves.

The paladin character concept in question does not have knowledge about Religion. You don't need to try to shoehorn in an explanation that will inevitably be false. The point is if the Paladin class granted Religion proficiency to all paladins, then this paladin cannot be created anymore (without going to the DM for homebrew).


IU can see the cleric argument but you can still use religion with how 5e skill system works. and Philosophy is covered by religion given religion covers everything thing on the lore about religions and the ideas of those religions Also know as Philosophy, and in a world where god is demonstrably real, all philosophy would in some minor way have to cover gods.

Religion has theories about Moral Philosophy, but you can be ignorant about religion and still have an in depth understanding about Moral Philosophy. Even in a world where gods are demonstrably real, Moral Philosophy can blatantly ignore such morally irrelevant details.


Philosophy could also fall under arcane, nature, or history as all of these can also touch on ideas of philosophy. Arcane, philosophy around magic, nature philosophy around druids, conservationism so on, and history, the history of philosophic ideas. 5e skill system makes it really easy to cover most ideas with the existing skill tho it can take some leg work to desperate ideas like philosophy.

Agreed. Although I did not mean to imply there needed to be a 5E skill for Moral Philosophy. I just wanted to correct the misunderstanding about Knowledge(Religion) being required for a Paladin with a moral philosophy.



Returning to my main point:
Having more floating skill proficiencies and having either the class or the subclass give a fixed proficiency helps characters that can't get their skills with the 2 floating + 2 from a long list. However it blocks characters that would not be proficient in the class' fixed skill. So pros and cons to both systems. Which is best for a specific edition will depend.

Edit: Although I still hope for a "Ranks per level, invest them as you will" system.

[Amdy_vill]

The paladin character concept in question does not have knowledge about Religion. You don't need to try to shoehorn in an explanation that will inevitably be false. The point is if the Paladin class granted Religion proficiency to all paladins, then this paladin cannot be created anymore (without going to the DM for homebrew).

I am not shoehorning in religion as a skill, i am say the skill the covers philosophy the most is religion. while other skills can definitely be used in some situations religion is the best one in most situations. you can also just choose not to roll on topics you don't think you know about. your acting like this restricts a character when 5e skill system makes your skill and stat completely subjective to what you are trying. if you want and can explain it you can make an athletics intelligence roll to take about some types of philosophy. in a system, this flexible no skill can restrict your character. you can just choose not to use religion on things like lore and gods and instead describe how you are doing so0mething with another skill or your character just don't engage with on philosophic uses of religion. no homebrew is required only for you to set your own boundaries on how you want to play. maybe a talk with your dm so they don't call for you to make a roll you wouldn't have your character know.

[Willowhelm]

As has already been said:

Backgrounds (even not custom) allow you to replace a skill proficiency if you have it from another source - it is easy to get the skill you want.

You should have a reason you stopped being JUST a <background> when you became an adventurer but you are a multi-faceted gem of a character. PCs are not a single label/noun (adventurer) any more than a real person. I may no longer be a student but my degree doesn’t disappear when I choose to change field and work in another discipline. My job doesn’t cover my hobbies, my social circles etc etc. Being an adventurer (because you are on an adventure, adventuring) is a part of the character (maybe even a prominent part) but not the entire thing. Even RAW. “Stopping” is not a permanent denial of who you once were (unless you want it to be).

With that said, on the topic of fixed skills:

Some (sub)classes do already give a fixed skill proficiency (or expertise). Eg scout rogue and knowledge cleric.


I am not shoehorning in religion as a skill, i am say the skill the covers philosophy the most is religion. while other skills can definitely be used in some situations religion is the best one in most situations.

I am not checking books right now but I’m pretty sure his is explicitly not how you go about this from RAW (although I admit this is how the game is usually played)

Not everything is a skill check. You don’t have a check and then shoehorn it into the nearest proficiency. It is a check based on the ability score and *if* a proficiency applies then you add your proficiency to it.

Ie. Raw strength checks exist. Not every strength check is athletics.

Raw wisdom and intelligence checks exist. It doesn’t have to be religion vs other skill options.

[Amdy_vill]

I am not checking books right now but I’m pretty sure his is explicitly not how you go about this from RAW (although I admit this is how the game is usually played)

Not everything is a skill check. You don’t have a check and then shoehorn it into the nearest proficiency. It is a check based on the ability score and *if* a proficiency applies then you add your proficiency to it.

Ie. Raw strength checks exist. Not every strength check is athletics.

Raw wisdom and intelligence checks exist. It doesn’t have to be religion vs other skill options.

This is the point I am trying to make, but I am also saying that you can use this to your advantage to avoid using the skill on fields you don't think your character would know.

[OldTrees1]

I am not shoehorning in religion as a skill
That was a reply to the other poster. The one that was arguing blatant counterfactuals about the Paladin. You and I were talking about more subtle counterfactuals.


, i am say the skill the covers philosophy the most is religion. while other skills can definitely be used in some situations religion is the best one in most situations. you can also just choose not to roll on topics you don't think you know about. your acting like this restricts a character when 5e skill system makes your skill and stat completely subjective to what you are trying. if you want and can explain it you can make an athletics intelligence roll to take about some types of philosophy. in a system, this flexible no skill can restrict your character. you can just choose not to use religion on things like lore and gods and instead describe how you are doing so0mething with another skill or your character just don't engage with on philosophic uses of religion. no homebrew is required only for you to set your own boundaries on how you want to play. maybe a talk with your dm so they don't call for you to make a roll you wouldn't have your character know.

I hear you, but someone that knows about moral philosophy (which does not need to be a skill) does not need to know anything about religion. So a Paladin that built their moral theory without knowledge of Religion (because religion is not required for morality) would not necessarily have proficiency in Religion.

That character concept (the paladin without proficiency in Religion) would not be possible under your hypothetical of having classes give a fixed skill proficiency, like all Paladins having proficiency in Religion.

Now your reply (with a changed example) is "Well in 5E if a character has no in character knowledge or proficiency about Tinkers Tools, and somehow the character is forced to have that proficiency, they can just ignore that proficiency" which is a fair answer. There are times I have crossed out a feature one of my characters "technically gained" that was not part of the characterization.

Is it a perfect answer? No, because it means that character has 1 less proficiency because they needed to ignore one that was irrelevant. However it is a good answer.


This is the point I am trying to make, but I am also saying that you can use this to your advantage to avoid using the skill on fields you don't think your character would know.

And this "You can just ignore the proficiency" is a good answer. See immediately above.

[Silly Name]

The paladin character concept in question does not have knowledge about Religion. You don't need to try to shoehorn in an explanation that will inevitably be false. The point is if the Paladin class granted Religion proficiency to all paladins, then this paladin cannot be created anymore (without going to the DM for homebrew).

My point was that "a paladin who is not religious" can still be knowledgeable about various aspect of religion without hurting the idea that they are not, personally, religious. If your character concept is "paladin who knows nothing about religion" that's another thing, but I don't think that classes granting an automatic proficiency in certain thematic skills for the class identity would be particularly bad.

One, because I don't think the system has any obligation to make any character concept "possible": sometimes something just doesn't work with the tone and setting of the game. Two, because if classes did grant automatic proficiencies it'd take zero effort to add a line about "talk with your DM if you'd rather have another skill proficiency".

In any case, I don't think fixed skill proficiencies would help at all with my complaints on 5e's skill system. The availability of skill proficiencies is just one part of the problem, too.


Edit: Although I still hope for a "Ranks per level, invest them as you will" system.

Would be a better system than what we currently have for sure. Perhaps we'll see it in Sixth Edition.

[Amdy_vill]

That was a reply to the other poster. The one that was arguing blatant counterfactuals about the Paladin. You and I were talking about more subtle counterfactuals.



I hear you, but someone that knows about moral philosophy (which does not need to be a skill) does not need to know anything about religion. So a Paladin that built their moral theory without knowledge of Religion (because religion is not required for morality) would not necessarily have proficiency in Religion.

That character concept (the paladin without proficiency in Religion) would not be possible under your hypothetical of having classes give a fixed skill proficiency, like all Paladins having proficiency in Religion.

Now your reply (with a changed example) is "Well in 5E if a character has no in character knowledge or proficiency about Tinkers Tools, and somehow the character is forced to have that proficiency, they can just ignore that proficiency" which is a fair answer. There are times I have crossed out a feature one of my characters "technically gained" that was not part of the characterization.

Is it a perfect answer? No, because it means that character has 1 less proficiency because they needed to ignore one that was irrelevant. However it is a good answer.



And this "You can just ignore the proficiency" is a good answer. See immediately above.


you have made a slight change to the problem that changes everything. I have been arguing for the point the philosophy is covered by religion and that you can delineate your use of skill not to ignore a skill. your other examples do have this problem but that's a problem in the current system anyway. I have not added a new problem to 5e skill system that the problem of useless forced skill pi9cks is already there and is even more present in the current system. this change still has those problems just in a small amount. instead of forcing an extremely limited choice, it gives you one of two givens and then several free choices. yes, this is still a problem but it's not as prevalent as I was in the current system. tho my system does invert it a bit as the classes that get more skills in my system and are then more restricted are the classes that have fewer restrictions in the current system.

Note: the skills I pick are skills used by and connected with machines used by those classes' abilities.

[OldTrees1]

you have made a slight change to the problem that changes everything. I have been arguing for the point the philosophy is covered by religion
I would rule that the Ethics and Meta Ethics branches of philosophy are not subsets of Religion proficiency. I base this on my studies of those fields and how they are almost completely unrelated to religion. Sort of like Medicine is not a subset of Religion.


Note: the skills I pick are skills used by and connected with machines used by those classes' abilities.
You did have a very good selection. I had to think hard to find character concepts that clashed. I even failed to find some (Druid/Monk).

While I still hold out hope for ranks per level, a well edited list of fixed proficiencies (that can be ignored) is a very good system.

[StoneSeraph]

Would be a better system than what we currently have for sure. Perhaps we'll see it in Sixth Edition.

Good Lord, I hope not.
Tying everything to a singular proficiency bonus is not perfect, but it's simple and elegant, and I greatly appreciate the "pick-up-and-play" philosophy behind it.
The skill system was one of the many reasons I stopped playing/running 3.x. Eventually you get tired of Homework: The Game...

[Amdy_vill]

I would rule that the Ethics and Meta Ethics branches of philosophy are not subsets of Religion proficiency. I base this on my studies of those fields and how they are almost completely unrelated to religion. Sort of like Medicine is not a subset of Religion.


You did have a very good selection. I had to think hard to find character concepts that clashed. I even failed to find some (Druid/Monk).

While I still hold out hope for ranks per level, a well edited list of fixed proficiencies (that can be ignored) is a very good system.

I oddly feel meta ethics would fall into arcane given how arcane covers some of the divine moral laws of the universe and other similar concepts in lore. tho I can see nature covering both as well. but I still think given how the dnd universe is set up with good and evil being fundamental forces of the univers religion could still cover them tho I feel it would be a situation where you would have a lot of options on skill and stat. dnd is odd when it comes down to philosophy given it would probably not be about good and evil like how we think about them given they are defined constants. Philosophy would probaly be very odd in dnd.

[Silly Name]

Good Lord, I hope not.
Tying everything to a singular proficiency bonus is not perfect, but it's simple and elegant, and I greatly appreciate the "pick-up-and-play" philosophy behind it.
The skill system was one of the many reasons I stopped playing/running 3.x. Eventually you get tired of Homework: The Game...

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Personally, I think the fundamentals of the d20System skill system are solid and quite enjoyable (I'll agree that the specific 3.5 implementation has a few bumps that bring it down considerably), but I understand the desire for simplicity.

I still hold that 5e should do more with skills, but that could be accomplished in a relatively satisfying manner by expanding skill use and non-combat aspects of the game while keeping the basics of the skill system unchanged.

[StoneSeraph]

I still hold that 5e should do more with skills, but that could be accomplished in a relatively satisfying manner by expanding skill use and non-combat aspects of the game while keeping the basics of the skill system unchanged.

Agreed. :smallsmile: This is what I try to accomplish on the DM side of the equation; having the proficiencies and expertise means nothing if they're not being put to use, which is why I do my best to encourage players to expand on what they have at any given moment while providing/producing non-combat challenges that allow players to flex their skills (literally). It's largely player-dependent - some just want to kick ass and take names, which is fine by me - but my skill monkeys appreciate the extra step and provide good feedback when faced with a challenge that doesn't involve hack-and-slash or some "solve this out-of-game" puzzle.

[OldTrees1]

Good Lord, I hope not.
Tying everything to a singular proficiency bonus is not perfect, but it's simple and elegant, and I greatly appreciate the "pick-up-and-play" philosophy behind it.
The skill system was one of the many reasons I stopped playing/running 3.x. Eventually you get tired of Homework: The Game...

Fair point. I think both could be supported. The pick-up-and-play method would have maximum investment in N specific skills (think 5E). The customizable option would grant you N ranks each time your proficiency bonus would increase.

Testing this out in 5E would be:
Your Rogue knows 6 skills at Proficiency
My Rogue would get 6 ranks at 1st, 5th, 9th, 13th, & 17th levels.

This would work better in a system where proficiency = character level instead of proficiency = 1 + RoundUp(level/4)

[Composer99]

Was just thinking on this: now that 5e has detached Racial bonuses for attributes, why do we still have limited skills for classes?

So, I don't think this is a very interesting question, because it is asking us to try to read the design team's minds.

A better question would be to ask to what extent are the two situations similar, and whether they are similar enough to warrant the removal of fixed skill lists?

To answer that question, we want to be able to answer these questions:
- What gameplay purpose do the fixed racial ASIs serve, and what gameplay possibilities does removing them open up?
- What gameplay purpose do the fixed class skill lists serve, and what gameplay possibilities does removing them open up?
- Are the situations similar enough to warrant removing the fixed class skill lists?

Now, it does so happen that there are "out-of-gameplay" reasons behind removing the fixed racial ASIs (among other changes to how PC races are depicted in the text), reasons that, as far as I can see, do not apply to the fixed class skill lists.

Fixed Racial ASIs
Tasha's briefly explains the gameplay purpose that fixed racial ASIs serve: to reinforce a particular archetype for player characters of that race.

The gameplay purpose that the Tasha's changes serve is to increase the possible spread of race/class combinations that more or less follow the designers' expected power curve (which appears to me to be 14-16 in a "prime requisite" ability score in tiers 1 & 2, 18-20 in that same score in tiers 3 & 4), with less pressure on ASIs from gaining levels to make up a shortcoming. That is, the change increases the number of possible theoretical character concepts that fit design expectations. (Obviously, if you are prepared to not fit design expectations, there are many additional possible character concepts.) It is meant to increase customisability.

Fixed Class Skill Lists
There is, as far as I am aware, no official text discussing the reasoning behind the fixed class skill lists. As such, we have no "Word of Designer" and can only come to our own conclusions. It follows that there likely won't be a consensus among D&D players as to what that reasoning might be.

Broadly speaking, it seems to me that each class skill list is intended to thematically reflect the kind of capabilities a newly-minted member of that class might pick up as part of becoming a member of that class. Not every class does a good job of this (e.g. the sorcerer). It reinforces a particular set of archetypes for players of that class.

What gameplay purpose would removing (or at least considerably expanding) such a list serve? Superficially, it serves a similar purpose as removing fixed racial ASIs: it increases the possible spread of class/skill combinations. It would increase customisability, albeit not to the same extent that removing racial ASIs does.

Similarity or Dissimilarity?
Are these situations similar enough that removing fixed racial ASIs warrants expanding or removing the fixed class skill lists?

If we take "out-of-gameplay" considerations into account, I would say no, they are not. Leaving such considerations aside, they are broadly similar, although other customisation options (existing backgrounds, modifying backgrounds, feats, and the Custom Lineage option from Tasha's) can allow one to pick up most skills wanted for one's concept, even if they aren't on the class skill list.

Granted, it does not follow that the situations' dissimilarity means that expanding or removing the fixed class skill lists is unwarranted on its own merits - only that making such a change does not logically follow from the various motives behind removing fixed racial ASIs.

All that is to say that, ultimately, I don't really feel this question is useful in deciding whether or not to alter fixed class skill lists. Rather, it is worth discussing on its own merits.

[Jon talks a lot]

Good god, this thread is "How to achieve total thread derailment".

[RSP]

"I didn't stop" is a valid RP answer to "Why did you stop".

Agreed: however, the asking of the question in the format in which it is asked is assuming it did stop. Asking why someone went to the store, for instance, assumes they went to the store.


Nobody is saying that characters are not defined by their class choices. Nobody is claiming that "Elsa the Queen who uses ice magic" isn't going on an adventure.

You stated “The backgrounds literally represent variations in how characters learned their crafts.” which I disagree with and pointed out that Backgrounds do not mean how you learned your class skills - which I stand behind: the game separates backgrounds from classes. Yes they can overlap, but they are distinct things.

The game assumes you’ve stopped being defined by being an Outlander when you took up studying magic to be a Wizard. You still have carryover from your time as an Outlander, but now you focus on other things.

Note: contrary to your earlier statement, being an Outlander is not how the Wizard learned Arcana (or whatever other class skill they choose).

So, Elsa is still a queen perhaps, but the game assumes everything associated with that aspect of the character will be left in the background during the campaign, and her casting and class abilities will be what is emphasized. Kind of why the Frozen movies didn’t contain two hours of Elsa doing administrative activities, but instead focused on her adventuring.

[GooeyChewie]

You stated “The backgrounds literally represent variations in how characters learned their crafts.” which I disagree with and pointed out that Backgrounds do not mean how you learned your class skills - which I stand behind: the game separates backgrounds from classes. Yes they can overlap, but they are distinct things.

The game assumes you’ve stopped being defined by being an Outlander when you took up studying magic to be a Wizard. You still have carryover from your time as an Outlander, but now you focus on other things.

Note: contrary to your earlier statement, being an Outlander is not how the Wizard learned Arcana (or whatever other class skill they choose).

Class and background might be mechanically distinct, but they are both part of what makes your character who they are. If I may reiterate the part you didn't quote, class and background are not an either/or proposition. Both inform your character's identity. You can be a Noble Sorcerer; you don't have to be just one or the other.

You yourself pointed out that RAW states the most important thing to ask yourself about your background is what changed. Somehow that character got from living in the wild, far from civilization and the comforts of town and technology, to a life of adventuring as Wizard, including everything that being a first-level Wizard entails. The answer to that question is an explanation of how the Outlander learned the craft of being a Wizard. Even if you answer that question with a deus ex machina, such as "I touched a stone and suddenly learned how to cast spells," that's still a variation on how the Outlander learned the craft of being a Wizard.


So, Elsa is still a queen perhaps, but the game assumes everything associated with that aspect of the character will be left in the background during the campaign, and her casting and class abilities will be what is emphasized. Kind of why the Frozen movies didn’t contain two hours of Elsa doing administrative activities, but instead focused on her adventuring.

Spoilers for an 8-year-old movie, and a 4-year-old movie:

The first movie starts with Elsa's coronation. Hans' villainous plot revolves around getting rid of Elsa and taking the crown. Elsa cares about freezing the realm because it's the realm she's supposed to be ruling and protecting. Basically the whole plot doesn't happen if she's not a Noble. And the second movie basically turns out to be one big diplomatic mission, ending up with Elsa becoming queen of an entirely different country. So while we don't see the boring parts of being a Noble, the fact that she is a Noble is a pretty defining part of her character in both movies, even while she's adventuring.

[RSP]

Well, the change in Tasha's was to make sure that every race is (more) viable for every class, not to get rid of the class system.

I believe, at least per WotC’s statement on it, the Tasha’s change was due to PC’s being extraordinary examples of the races and, as such, aren’t bound by the norms. Here’s the statement on this (grabbed off the net as afb but correct as I’m recalling it):

“It’s all about digging into the fact that adventurers are exceptional. The race options as written in the Player’s Handbook are Western high-fantasy archetypes. If you want your character’s backstory to diverge from that archetype in significant ways, there are now some very simple rules to make those changes. Many players embrace these high fantasy archetypes. Yet for other players, having their character differ from the archetype is what draws them to that character. And we want to make sure that our rules make it just as possible to take that path as to follow the archetype.”

So back to my original statement: if it’s fine to untether ability scores from races because PCs aren’t necessarily the archetypes WotC imagined when they designed 5e, shouldn’t the same philosophy (whether you agree with it or not) apply to picking skills outside the class archetypes?

[OldTrees1]

Agreed: however, the asking of the question in the format in which it is asked is assuming it did stop. Asking why someone went to the store, for instance, assumes they went to the store.

Assuming? Maybe. But not an assumption assumed to be infallible. A Noble is still a noble. Dun is still a dungeon tour guide. They did not stop.

And if they did not stop, then their background is still a part of them. It is still able to impact how they develop their levels. It is still able to impact how they develop their craft. The skills you chose as part of your custom background do not need to be divorced from how you conceptualize your character's occupation / craft. The background can be a part of how the character develops the skills of their craft.

And it can be rather extreme in that regard. Half of Dun's proficiencies related to being a Dungeon Tour Guide came from the background and half came from their apprentice levels (1-2). Both sources are used together to tell a more cohesive whole.

Some Fighters know Arcana.

[Silly Name]

I believe, at least per WotC’s statement on it, the Tasha’s change was due to PC’s being extraordinary examples of the races and, as such, aren’t bound by the norms. Here’s the statement on this (grabbed off the net as afb but correct as I’m recalling it):

“It’s all about digging into the fact that adventurers are exceptional. The race options as written in the Player’s Handbook are Western high-fantasy archetypes. If you want your character’s backstory to diverge from that archetype in significant ways, there are now some very simple rules to make those changes. Many players embrace these high fantasy archetypes. Yet for other players, having their character differ from the archetype is what draws them to that character. And we want to make sure that our rules make it just as possible to take that path as to follow the archetype.”

So back to my original statement: if it’s fine to untether ability scores from races because PCs aren’t necessarily the archetypes WotC imagined when they designed 5e, shouldn’t the same philosophy (whether you agree with it or not) apply to picking skills outside the class archetypes?

I mean, the answer has multiple parts:

1) The skill selection offered by classes is already flexible by design. It's a list from which you can pick, not a hard-locked feature like racial ability modifiers are in the base game. You can already be a wizard without proficiency in Arcana, if you want to, a cleric not trained in Medicine, etc.

2) Impact on character concept. Overall, skills are less impactful on how you visualise your character than abilities are. That +2 to a key ability for your character will be more impactful in shaping their mechanical identity than skill or tool proficiencies ever will (unless you're building to have the most skill proficiencies or something), and mechanics and thematics (should) feed into eachother - if I choose to play an agile bowman, I'll want high Dexterity. If I don't have high Dexterity, I'm not able to play as an agile bowman no matter how hard I try.

3) The different weight of race and class. There is far more baggage attached to the idea your race definies some fundamental characterists of you as a person than there is to the concept that your chosen trade is correlated to developing certain skills. Being able to break from the stereotypes of certain races is far more impactful for players than being able to pick up Athletics proficiency through the Wizard class.

[Veldrenor]

I admire the chutzpah, but I think if you choose Arcana as a wizard skill and then take the Sage background, 99% of DMs would tell you to pick a different skill as your wizard class skill.

No chutzpah needed, them's the RAW. Chapter 4, page 125, proficiencies: "If a character would gain the same proficiency from two different sources, he or she can choose a different proficiency of the same kind (skill or tool) instead." The reason that rule doesn't show up until chapter 4 is because it's the first chance that it would become a question if a new player were following Chapter 1 to create their first character.

[PattThe]

It's like nobody reads the 4th chapter fully of the PHB

[RSP]

I mean, the answer has multiple parts:

1) The skill selection offered by classes is already flexible by design. It's a list from which you can pick, not a hard-locked feature like racial ability modifiers are in the base game. You can already be a wizard without proficiency in Arcana, if you want to, a cleric not trained in Medicine, etc.

But, again, the connection between Arcana and Wizard is the same as Elves and being Dextrous: most Wizards study Arcana but not all and nothing requires it. And while the system says the Wizard can have studied Arcana while doing their Wizard thing (as opposed to from a background), they could also have spent that time instead studying History, or learning how to read people (Insight). But they couldn’t have spent that time studying Nature (unless they already previously studied Arcana as part of their Background, which, for some reason unlocks their ability to study Nature while Wizard-ing).

So PCs are extraordinary enough to be a Str Elf in a world of Dex Elves (quite possibly defying genetics), but not to have spent time studying Nature instead of Arcana or History (which doesn’t sound like it requires a particularly high degree of extraordinary-ness).



2) Impact on character concept. Overall, skills are less impactful on how you visualise your character than abilities are. That +2 to a key ability for your character will be more impactful in shaping their mechanical identity than skill or tool proficiencies ever will (unless you're building to have the most skill proficiencies or something), and mechanics and thematics (should) feed into eachother - if I choose to play an agile bowman, I'll want high Dexterity. If I don't have high Dexterity, I'm not able to play as an agile bowman no matter how hard I try.

I’ve learned many disagree with this position: they believe ability scores don’t dictate RP. In particular, look up discussions on RPing Int and the varying ways it’s played, if interested in learning more of that. You can play a Cha 5 character who always takes the lead in the party and converses well, presents convincing arguments, is sure of themself, etc. Likewise, apparently plenty play that dumping Int or Wis doesn’t particularly affect RP characteristics.

More over, only the mechanics matter for either score, in terms of the game play. I can RP some mine who is an agile bowman, I can do so even if they tend to miss with their bow and fail Dex rolls. Likewise, I can RP a History buff that doesn’t have History as a skill.



3) The different weight of race and class. There is far more baggage attached to the idea your race definies some fundamental characterists of you as a person than there is to the concept that your chosen trade is correlated to developing certain skills. Being able to break from the stereotypes of certain races is far more impactful for players than being able to pick up Athletics proficiency through the Wizard class.

You’re not addressing what I’m referring to (and I’m not interested in discussing real world race issues on this forum). WotC in Tasha’s didn’t say “due to real world stuff, we’re removing fantasy racial tropes from the game.” They said “all those tropes still exist, but we want you to be able to play a PC who doesn’t fall into those tropes.” Basically, Elves are still generally considered just as dexterous as they were pre-Tasha’s; but now you can play an unusual elf who is strong instead of dexterous.

[Droppeddead]

But, again, the connection between Arcana and Wizard is the same as Elves and being Dextrous: most Wizards study Arcana but not all and nothing requires it.

Which is why you already can play a wizard without being proficient in Arcana,


And while the system says the Wizard can have studied Arcana while doing their Wizard thing (as opposed to from a background), they could also have spent that time instead studying History, or learning how to read people (Insight). But they couldn’t have spent that time studying Nature (unless they already previously studied Arcana as part of their Background, which, for some reason unlocks their ability to study Nature while Wizard-ing).

So PCs are extraordinary enough to be a Str Elf in a world of Dex Elves (quite possibly defying genetics), but not to have spent time studying Nature instead of Arcana or History (which doesn’t sound like it requires a particularly high degree of extraordinary-ness).


Well no. They could have studied nature as part of their background. This is basically the same argument that you made for stealth.


I can RP a History buff that doesn’t have History as a skill.

Sure, I see no problem with that. I know a lot of history buffs that keep forgetting things, mix things up or need to look for things in books.


You’re not addressing what I’m referring to (and I’m not interested in discussing real world race issues on this forum). WotC in Tasha’s didn’t say “due to real world stuff, we’re removing fantasy racial tropes from the game.” They said “all those tropes still exist, but we want you to be able to play a PC who doesn’t fall into those tropes.” Basically, Elves are still generally considered just as dexterous as they were pre-Tasha’s; but now you can play an unusual elf who is strong instead of dexterous.

And again, the class system is in ways both more rigid and more flexible than the race system. More rigid in the way that it limits the number of skills you have access to but more flexible in that it never forces certain skills on the player. And together with the rest of the character creation system (remember, these things aren't disconnected from each other) there is enough room to customize your character so that you can have your sneaky nature-loving wizard, for example. :smallsmile:

[RSP]

Which is why you already can play a wizard without being proficient in Arcana,



Well no. They could have studied nature as part of their background. This is basically the same argument that you made for stealth.



Sure, I see no problem with that. I know a lot of history buffs that keep forgetting things, mix things up or need to look for things in books.



And again, the class system is in ways both more rigid and more flexible than the race system. More rigid in the way that it limits the number of skills you have access to but more flexible in that it never forces certain skills on the player. And together with the rest of the character creation system (remember, these things aren't disconnected from each other) there is enough room to customize your character so that you can have your sneaky nature-loving wizard, for example. :smallsmile:

None of this addresses my points, you’re just restating that there are ways to get certain skills during character creation.

[StoneSeraph]

2) Impact on character concept. Overall, skills are less impactful on how you visualise your character than abilities are. That +2 to a key ability for your character will be more impactful in shaping their mechanical identity than skill or tool proficiencies ever will (unless you're building to have the most skill proficiencies or something), and mechanics and thematics (should) feed into eachother - if I choose to play an agile bowman, I'll want high Dexterity. If I don't have high Dexterity, I'm not able to play as an agile bowman no matter how hard I try.

I understand your argument behind the low DEX bowman, but I disagree with the sentiment of skill proficiencies beings less impactful than ability scores as far as character concept. A high ability score represents natural giftedness, whereby a skill proficiency represents practice.

Compare the ideas of a Level 1 character with STR 16, another with STR 12 and Athletics proficiency, and another with STR 8 and Athletics expertise. They are tasked with knocking someone prone with a contested Athletics check. Picture those characters in your mind, if you will, and imagine how they would accomplish their task.

The first character is a heavyweight fighter, built like a brick house and can hit like a Mack truck, and when it comes to knocking someone to the ground, they rely on raw power alone. The second character is a martial artist, a bit leaner but still well-built and stronger than most, and instead of relying on power alone to knock someone over, they have practiced good techniques to ensure success. The third character is frail and perhaps no longer has the raw strength of the others, but he is a judo master, relying solely on practiced technique and manipulation of the enemy's body, honed over decades of practice, to take a foe to the mats.

All three of these characters have a +3 to their Athletics, but we can visualize their different personages and their different approaches to solving the same problems. As these characters level up, the third character, owing to mastery of technique, will outpace the first two, should neither of them decide to train by boosting their STR or becoming proficient/experts. Thankfully, the Skill Expert feat allows for that, should a player see fit to go that route (never let it be said I dislike TCE - this is one of the few bits I appreciate).

Also, with regard to the "unless you're building to have the most skill proficiencies or something" comment, skill monkeys do exist and tend to shine in non-combat scenarios (or even mid-combat, if the circumstances are right).

[OldTrees1]

None of this addresses my points, you’re just restating that there are ways to get certain skills during character creation.

They are restating ways to get certain skills because they don't accept your premise to ignore the background. Nor your more rigid POV on backgrounds.

Do you want a Wizard that learned Stealth and Nature from their Wizard Training? Use a custom background with proficiency in Stealth and Nature to represent your Wizard Training.

Why would WotC feel less pressure to change the class skill lists? Because backgrounds exist and give ample extra flexibility to those class lists. You can already have the Wizard that does not know Arcana but does know Nature and Stealth from their training. Some Fighters did learn Arcana from their training.

You want to ignore the IRL context for the change WotC made? Sure, but there was a relevant difference between skills and ability modifiers in that context. That might influence WotC to change one rather than all.

Class spell lists also still exist. The reason WotC did not remove class spell lists in Tasha's might answer why they did not remove class skill lists either.

Your question was why didn't Tasha's remove class skill lists. These are some of the factors that add up to that decision. It is explaining what is rather than arguing about what should be.

[GooeyChewie]

None of this addresses my points, you’re just restating that there are ways to get certain skills during character creation.

Your argument is that PCs are extraordinary enough to have trained in whatever skill they want. Demonstrating that you can become proficient in any skill you want with any class you want at character creation addresses that argument.

Want to be a Wizard who studies Nature? Cool, Cloistered Scholar is practically custom-made for such a character. Or you can pick a different background with a doubled-up skill and swap. Or you can create a custom background yourself. Any of those will get you a Wizard who studies Nature.

I think where we're not seeing eye to eye is in what it means to have a background. You seem to treat class and background as two completely separate and distinct things. Mechanically, during character creation, that's true. But for a well-developed character, class and background are merely layers of the character's identity, and not always terribly distinguishable layers at that. If a character spends all their free time studying in the library, and as a result of that study they are knowledgeable about Arcana, History, Nature and Religion, would anybody in-universe really distinguish what of that knowledge came from being a Wizard and what of that knowledge came from being a Cloistered Scholar? Or would they just think of the character as that person who casts spells and knows a lot of stuff?

[RSP]

They are restating ways to get certain skills because they don't accept your premise to ignore the background. Nor your more rigid POV on backgrounds.

The thread is about class skill lists post-Tasha’s. I appreciate the advice, but I don’t need to know how backgrounds can provide certain skills, or how to build a “sneaky Wizard.” Thats just trying to derail this thread at this point.



Do you want a Wizard that learned Stealth and Nature from their Wizard Training? Use a custom background with proficiency in Stealth and Nature to represent your Wizard Training.

That wouldn’t be their Wizard training then but whatever their background was.



You can already have the Wizard that does not know Arcana but does know Nature and Stealth from their training. Some Fighters did learn Arcana from their training.

You cannot, RAW, have a Wizard that knows Nature from their Wizard class. Likewise with Fighters and Arcana. You’re stating you can, but that isn’t correct how the RAW works.



Class spell lists also still exist. The reason WotC did not remove class spell lists in Tasha's might answer why they did not remove class skill lists either.

Class spell lists are something different: if you want to discuss class spell lists, by all means start a new thread to do so.



Your question was why didn't Tasha's remove class skill lists. These are some of the factors that add up to that decision. It is explaining what is rather than arguing about what should be.

I don’t need to know “what is.” I get you really want to explain this stuff to me: but I don’t need an explanation on “what is.” The thread, and my thoughts were in regard to WotC new philosophy that PCs shouldn’t be contained by the idea of archetypes, yet keeping the class skill lists does just that.

All this “but backgrounds can get you certain skills” isn’t what this thread was started to discuss.


Your argument is that PCs are extraordinary enough to have trained in whatever skill they want. Demonstrating that you can become proficient in any skill you want with any class you want at character creation addresses that argument.

Not quite: my argument is, if WotC philosophy is PCs are extraordinary enough to defy archetypes, then they should get rid of class skills, which specifically keep PCs contained in archetypal roles.



Want to be a Wizard who studies Nature? Cool, Cloistered Scholar is practically custom-made for such a character. Or you can pick a different background with a doubled-up skill and swap. Or you can create a custom background yourself. Any of those will get you a Wizard who studies Nature.

Backgrounds aren’t class skills. I’m not in need of explanations of how certain skills can be acquired on a certain PC.



I think where we're not seeing eye to eye is in what it means to have a background.

No, we’re not seeing eye to eye because your approaching this thread as “backgrounds can already get you certain skills”, when I started it to ask about the change in 5e from something like “here’s rules to play an archetypal character, as we see it”, to “PCs shouldn’t be contained by archetypal ideas.”

They only reason the class skills exist is to reinforce the archetypal beliefs of the classes: Wizards typically study History and not Nature, therefore the class list contains History and not Nature. That idea only reinforces that we should be playing archetypes, not exceptions; and goes against their philosophical change.



You seem to treat class and background as two completely separate and distinct things. Mechanically, during character creation, that's true. But for a well-developed character, class and background are merely layers of the character's identity, and not always terribly distinguishable layers at that.

Your obviously very educated opinion of me is noted: I get it, you doubt my ability to make a “well-developed character” because we’ve traded some posts.

If you want to discuss what this thread is meant to be about, rather than being condescending, please stick to what I’m discussing.

[OldTrees1]

I don’t need to know “what is.” I get you really want to explain this stuff to me: but I don’t need an explanation on “what is.” The thread, and my thoughts were in regard to WotC new philosophy that PCs shouldn’t be contained by the idea of archetypes, yet keeping the class skill lists does just that.

And all the stuff you are labeling as "off topic" is the honest answers to your question. They are describing why WotC's new philosophy did not bother to include changing skill lists.

To reply to your thoughts on, and question about the new philosophy RE class skill lists, we needed to examine a few relevant factors.

I brought up backgrounds because they are relevant. PCs are not constrained to archetypes in part because backgrounds exist.
1) The skills known are not perfectly flexible, but are much more flexible than ability score modifiers were. That is relevant.
2) The background skills can be used to explain variation in class training. You constantly reject this out of hand, but your rejection has not prevented it from working.

I brought up class spell lists because the thrust of your observation was "WotC added flexibility to races in Tashas, why didn't they add flexibility to ___ as well?" which is best highlighted by pointing out there are plenty of things that follow the same line of questioning. So to answer the question we need to actually look at the specifics and the relevant factors.



You cannot, RAW, have a Wizard that knows Nature from their Wizard class. Likewise with Fighters and Arcana. You’re stating you can, but that isn’t correct how the RAW works.
By RAW you can have your Wizard know Nature.
By RAW you can have your Wizard know Nature from their Background.
By RAW you are told by default to work with your DM to make a custom Background.
BY RAW your background can explain how you became a Wizard, including some of your Wizard training.
So no, you can't get Nature from your 3rd and 4th skills known (the ones on the "class list")*. But you can learn Nature as part of your Wizard training. By using Chapter 4 and working with your DM to create a custom background.
*Assuming we are still talking about a Wizard that has none of Arcana, History, Insight, Investigation, Medicine, or Religion from their background.

That is what I am stating is how WotC understands the situation. That is one of the factors I suspect answers why WotC's new philosophy made racial ability modifiers more flexible but did not make class skill lists more flexible.

You have added 2 houserules. Your houserules are that the background MUST be irrelevant to the Wizard training and must have ended before the Wizard training. WotC does not know or presume your houserules are RAW.

Consider: Human Apprentice_Red_Wizard Wizard that learned Deception and Nature from Apprentice_Red_Wizard background. Their background explains some of their Wizard training.

[Anymage]

Just skimmed the topic. But the main reason races were reworked so thoroughly was for reasons we'll just call 2020 reasons, and note that some of the more recent UA races do indeed have fixed skill proficiencies to note that sometimes it is just a biological advantage. Classes and class skill lists didn't receive nearly as much popular attention, so they flew under the developers radars. Doubly so since backgrounds and the way that backgrounds get used in practice means that most characters wind up with whatever skills the player wants anyways.

You really, absolutely want to make a character who doesn't have any of the character's class skills on their list, and you can explain how that came about? Maybe not RAW, but it doesn't seem like a thing that'd be worth fighting with a player over. The fact that it wasn't a big enough issue for developers to write the rule into a book doesn't mean that it isn't in the spirit of the post-Tasha's philosophy.

[RSP]

And all the stuff you are labeling as "off topic" is the honest answers to your question. They are describing why WotC's new philosophy did not bother to include changing skill lists.

To reply to your thoughts on, and question about the new philosophy RE class skill lists, we needed to examine a few relevant factors.

I brought up backgrounds because they are relevant. PCs are not constrained to archetypes in part because backgrounds exist.
1) The skills known are not perfectly flexible, but are much more flexible than ability score modifiers were. That is relevant.
2) The background skills can be used to explain variation in class training. You constantly reject this out of hand, but your rejection has not prevented it from working.

I brought up class spell lists because the thrust of your observation was "WotC added flexibility to races in Tashas, why didn't they add flexibility to ___ as well?" which is best highlighted by pointing out there are plenty of things that follow the same line of questioning. So to answer the question we need to actually look at the specifics and the relevant factors.



By RAW you can have your Wizard know Nature.
By RAW you can have your Wizard know Nature from their Background.
By RAW you are told by default to work with your DM to make a custom Background.
BY RAW your background can explain how you became a Wizard, including some of your Wizard training.
So no, you can't get Nature from your 3rd and 4th skills known (the ones on the "class list")*. But you can learn Nature as part of your Wizard training. By using Chapter 4 and working with your DM to create a custom background.
*Assuming we are still talking about a Wizard that has none of Arcana, History, Insight, Investigation, Medicine, or Religion from their background.

That is what I am stating is how WotC understands the situation. That is one of the factors I suspect answers why WotC's new philosophy made racial ability modifiers more flexible but did not make class skill lists more flexible.

You have added 2 houserules. Your houserules are that the background MUST be irrelevant to the Wizard training and must have ended before the Wizard training. WotC does not know or presume your houserules are RAW.

Consider: Human Apprentice_Red_Wizard Wizard that learned Deception and Nature from Apprentice_Red_Wizard background. Their background explains some of their Wizard training.

None of this deals with the topic.

You stating “there are ways to get the skill already” would be akin to “we don’t need to make the Tasha’s Racial Ability changes because PC Elves can already have high Strength through Ability Score allocation, Feats and ASIs.”

All your posts follow that line of thinking: “if you assign your 15 to Strength and your 8 to Dex, you have a Strength Elf and not a Dex Elf, so we don’t need Tasha’s changes.”

Obviously, that’s not what the developers thought when they made the change. It’s that change in thinking that I’m discussing.

The fact that Backgrounds are a thing doesn’t change that Class Skill lists are still reinforcing archetypes, which is the very thing WotC stated they’re trying to get away from.

[OldTrees1]

None of this deals with the topic.

You stating “there are ways to get the skill already” would be akin to “we don’t need to make the Tasha’s Racial Ability changes because PC Elves can already have high Strength through Ability Score allocation, Feats and ASIs.”

All your posts follow that line of thinking: “if you assign your 15 to Strength and your 8 to Dex, you have a Strength Elf and not a Dex Elf, so we don’t need Tasha’s changes.”

Obviously, that’s not what the developers thought when they made the change. It’s that change in thinking that I’m discussing.

The fact that Backgrounds are a thing doesn’t change that Class Skill lists are still reinforcing archetypes, which is the very thing WotC stated they’re trying to get away from.

The class skill lists are "pick 2 from 1/3rd of all 18 skills" in addition to the "pick any 2" you get from your background (which can be used as part of your character's class training). If that "reinforces archetypes" it does so orders of magnitude less than racial abilities modifiers did. That difference in magnitude is one* of the factors for why WotC's new philosophy did not include changes to class skill lists in their releases.
*The other factors are also relevant despite you labeling them as off topic

You can liken that to “if you assign your 15 to Strength", as long as you recognize the different magnitude. It is similar, but I think the difference in magnitude helps explains why WotC new philosophy included one change as a variant but did not include the other change to RAW.

Now, from reading the opening post, I expect you would disgree with that policy. There are many things WotC does I disagree with. However, seeing the difference in magnitude helps me understand why they might reach the conclusion they did.

Basically what Anymage said. The developers might not have viewed class skill lists as a big enough deal to be worth changing RAW. It is 5E after all. They expect DMs to make more rulings.

You really, absolutely want to make a character who doesn't have any of the character's class skills on their list, and you can explain how that came about? Maybe not RAW, but it doesn't seem like a thing that'd be worth fighting with a player over. The fact that it wasn't a big enough issue for developers to write the rule into a book doesn't mean that it isn't in the spirit of the post-Tasha's philosophy.

[Composer99]

The fact that Backgrounds are a thing doesn’t change that Class Skill lists are still reinforcing archetypes, which is the very thing WotC stated they’re trying to get away from.

Classes themselves are archetype-limiting and archetype-enforcing/reinforcing: certain character archetypes fit some character classes better than others, and some archetypes don't fit within certain classes at all. A 'spellcasting master of undead' archetype is a very poor fit with a fighter, ranger, or rogue, and can't fit at all with a barbarian, for instance.

The barbarian class also lends itself to archetypes of the melee-fighting brute, and few others (although that brute can be, well, not a brute, outside of combat).

Now, each 5e's classes are, by intent, able to cover large swathes of archetypes, but it is still the case that by their nature, classes limit some archetypes and reinforce others, requiring feats or multiclassing in some cases for a particular archetype to be realised.

Given that, your assessment is mistaken: WotC is trying to get away from using character race to reinforce archetypes (because they have said so), but not using character class to do so, because reinforcing archetypes is one of the things character classes are meant to do.

If classes are still meant to reflect particular archetypes or sets of broadly-related archetypes, and as far as I am aware we have no statement from WotC to the contrary, then it follows that fixed class skill lists can help classes fulfill this intent.

If you think fixed class skill lists are unnecessary, fair enough. But the fact that WotC changed fixed racial ASIs ultimately has no bearing on class skill lists, because class skill lists are part of a game-mechanic structure - character classes - that by definition is meant to reinforce/restrict/limit character archetypes.

[Chaosmancer]

If the question here is that should you be able to pick any skills you want, in practical terms, you mostly can. With custom backgrounds and the ability to swap duplicate skills it is generally pretty easy to get anything that you want.

I think that is why they didn't decouple them, it isn't really necessary.

[GooeyChewie]

Not quite: my argument is, if WotC philosophy is PCs are extraordinary enough to defy archetypes, then they should get rid of class skills, which specifically keep PCs contained in archetypal roles.
I still maintain that demonstrating that you can become proficient in any skill you want with any class you want at character creation addresses that argument. Class skills define your class archetype; background skills allow you to defy that archetype.


Your obviously very educated opinion of me is noted: I get it, you doubt my ability to make a “well-developed character” because we’ve traded some posts.

If you want to discuss what this thread is meant to be about, rather than being condescending, please stick to what I’m discussing.
I did not mean to imply that you do not have the ability to make well-developed characters. If that's what you took away from my post, I apologize for the miscommunication.

The point I was trying to convey is that both background and class go into the development of a character's identity. It doesn't really matter how your character got a skill; the fact that your character got that skill contributes to their identity. Even mechanically, once you have them the game makes no distinction between skills you got from your class, skills you got from your background, and skills you got from any other source.

Let's suppose WotC did remove class skill lists. A Wizard who got Nature as one of their "class" skills wouldn't defy the Wizard archetype any more than would a Wizard who got that same skill through their background under the current rules. In fact, I would argue that the Wizard who had to get it through their background did more to defy the archetype, since the Wizard with no limits on their class skills effectively has no skill archetype to defy.

[RSP]

I still maintain that demonstrating that you can become proficient in any skill you want with any class you want at character creation addresses that argument. Class skills define your class archetype; background skills allow you to defy that archetype.

Let’s say you wanted a Folk Hero Background for your Wizard. You could not then, RAW, also choose that your Wizard studied Nature instead of History, Medicine, Religion or Arcana. So, no, it’s not possible, RAW to become proficient in any skill you want with any class you want - you would have to sacrifice either your background or class.



I did not mean to imply that you do not have the ability to make well-developed characters. If that's what you took away from my post, I apologize for the miscommunication.

Noted.



The point I was trying to convey is that both background and class go into the development of a character's identity. It doesn't really matter how your character got a skill; the fact that your character got that skill contributes to their identity. Even mechanically, once you have them the game makes no distinction between skills you got from your class, skills you got from your background, and skills you got from any other source.

Let's suppose WotC did remove class skill lists. A Wizard who got Nature as one of their "class" skills wouldn't defy the Wizard archetype any more than would a Wizard who got that same skill through their background under the current rules. In fact, I would argue that the Wizard who had to get it through their background did more to defy the archetype, since the Wizard with no limits on their class skills effectively has no skill archetype to defy.

It does matter how your character got their skills, if we’re developing backgrounds and not just mechanically creating PCs. If your PC started out making their own way in the streets as a scout for the local thieves guild (Criminal background), but ended up, after a fortuitous set of circumstances put them in position to apprentice, as a Wizard; they wouldn’t also have been able to study Nature.

Your response as I understand it is “well don’t have them be a Criminal background, make a custom background that gives them Nature instead. Well, then, I guess my PC now wasn’t a scout for the local thieves guild but instead was studying Nature. So I had to give up the Background, and story, I wanted because Wizards can’t study Nature.

[RSP]

Given that, your assessment is mistaken: WotC is trying to get away from using character race to reinforce archetypes (because they have said so), but not using character class to do so, because reinforcing archetypes is one of the things character classes are meant to do.

I disagree: as I’ve understood it, they’ve stated something along the lines of “we’re keeping the archetypes of our fantasy Races in the 5e worlds as they are, but PCs are special and can break that mold.” So generic NPC elves are still Dex Elves, but a PC can be a Str Elf. They also stated they’re planning on having different Racial archetypes in new worlds.

And I don’t think their statements were contained to racial archetypes: to me, it sounded more general, that they don’t want characters to have to abide by archetypes if that’s not what fits the PC.

“...Yet for other players, having their character differ from the archetype is what draws them to that character. And we want to make sure that our rules make it just as possible to take that path as to follow the archetype.”

I read that as a more general philosophy, than specifically just applying to a PC’s Race. I find it odd to think of that as “we wholeheartedly agree that you should be able to play against the archetypes of a fantasy Race; but how dare you want to play a Wizard who studies Nature in lieu of Arcana, History, or Religion.”

Again, to me it seems they are taking a broader approach.

I also disagree that classes are intended to reinforce archetypes, as I understand you meaning it. Classes categorizeechanical abilities, and in some cases, tether those to conditions (such as Wizards requiring study to learn spells, or Warlocks getting their abilities from a Patron.

Those aren’t really archetypes: you can have a physically active Wizard who is nothing like the classing Wizard tropes fairly easily. Same with any class and breaking the archetype: my Rogue could be a warrior who strikes with amazing precision, rather than any sneaky, thieving archetype the class was dreamt from.

[Composer99]

I disagree: as I’ve understood it, they’ve stated something along the lines of “we’re keeping the archetypes of our fantasy Races in the 5e worlds as they are, but PCs are special and can break that mold.” So generic NPC elves are still Dex Elves, but a PC can be a Str Elf. They also stated they’re planning on having different Racial archetypes in new worlds.

And I don’t think their statements were contained to racial archetypes: to me, it sounded more general, that they don’t want characters to have to abide by archetypes if that’s not what fits the PC.

“...Yet for other players, having their character differ from the archetype is what draws them to that character. And we want to make sure that our rules make it just as possible to take that path as to follow the archetype.”

I read that as a more general philosophy, than specifically just applying to a PC’s Race. I find it odd to think of that as “we wholeheartedly agree that you should be able to play against the archetypes of a fantasy Race; but how dare you want to play a Wizard who studies Nature in lieu of Arcana, History, or Religion.”

Again, to me it seems they are taking a broader approach.

I also disagree that classes are intended to reinforce archetypes, as I understand you meaning it. Classes categorizeechanical abilities, and in some cases, tether those to conditions (such as Wizards requiring study to learn spells, or Warlocks getting their abilities from a Patron.

Those aren’t really archetypes: you can have a physically active Wizard who is nothing like the classing Wizard tropes fairly easily. Same with any class and breaking the archetype: my Rogue could be a warrior who strikes with amazing precision, rather than any sneaky, thieving archetype the class was dreamt from.

The statements WotC makes to which you are referring are found in the section Customizing Your Origin in Tasha's, where they are specifically discussing changes to the way players can make changes to the features bestowed by their character race: "Despite that versatility [the combination of ability scores, race, class, and background], a typical character race in D&D includes little to no choice - a lack that can make it difficult to realize certain character concepts. The following subsections address that lack [...]".

In those remarks, WotC says nothing about character class. I do not see anything in the text that supports the view that "they are taking a broader approach".

If WotC meant to change the way class skill lists work as an option in Tasha's, they would have simply done so. They did not. What is more, not only did they not change the way class skill lists work, the option they included for general skill re-training (pg. 8) restricts one to those very same lists. Since we cannot read the design team's mind, and I should not expect any of the design team credited in the book to pop on here to elaborate further, the most parsimonious explanation is that WotC did not feel any need to "tak[e] a broader approach" with respect to classes, or at any rate no broader an approach than was offered by the new subclasses, the skill re-training rule on pg. 8, the subclass-switching rule on that same page, and the variant class features.

No one is stopping you from running a game where the class skill lists no longer exist, or from petitioning your DM to allow you to disregard them, if that's what you want in your game. But there is no broad textual support for the notion that WotC intends for class skill lists not to matter.

With respect to classes and their relationship to archetypes, it strikes me that you have taken a much narrower view of that relationship than I have. I would invite you to consider a round dozen common fantasy RPG character archetypes and see how well they map onto the D&D classes. I am quite certain you will find that most, if not all, of those archetypes map more cleanly onto some classes, and less cleanly onto others. Which is the point of having character classes.

[Silly Name]

Let’s say you wanted a Folk Hero Background for your Wizard. You could not then, RAW, also choose that your Wizard studied Nature instead of History, Medicine, Religion or Arcana. So, no, it’s not possible, RAW to become proficient in any skill you want with any class you want - you would have to sacrifice either your background or class.

It does matter how your character got their skills, if we’re developing backgrounds and not just mechanically creating PCs. If your PC started out making their own way in the streets as a scout for the local thieves guild (Criminal background), but ended up, after a fortuitous set of circumstances put them in position to apprentice, as a Wizard; they wouldn’t also have been able to study Nature.

Your response as I understand it is “well don’t have them be a Criminal background, make a custom background that gives them Nature instead. Well, then, I guess my PC now wasn’t a scout for the local thieves guild but instead was studying Nature. So I had to give up the Background, and story, I wanted because Wizards can’t study Nature.

Again, "custom background" can be anything you want. You could have been a scout for a local thieves guild who learnt botany and similar skills to help in their job - perhaps to craft poison or better camouflage yourself in the verdant areas of the elven city you worked in. You could have been training under a wizard member of the thieves guild (or their alchemist, medic...) at the same time you were a scout, and she taught you all she knew about alchemy, which included a vast knowledge of plants and animals to use in potions and philters. Maybe your group used flowers and other plants to mark houses.

Want to be a folk hero with Nature? Knowledge of nature fits right in with growing up as a farmer: you can tell when an animal's sick, recognise fertile soil, judge when the harvest's ready, and have experience distinguishing invasive plant species and know how to get rid of them.

The limitation you lament is purely self-imposed: creating a custom background to fit your character better is right there in the rules, and the only limits are your imagination and your DM potentially vetoing things.

[GooeyChewie]

Let’s say you wanted a Folk Hero Background for your Wizard. You could not then, RAW, also choose that your Wizard studied Nature instead of History, Medicine, Religion or Arcana. So, no, it’s not possible, RAW to become proficient in any skill you want with any class you want - you would have to sacrifice either your background or class.
Objectively, you can be proficient with any skill with any class you want, through the use of backgrounds. If you chose the Folk Hero background as printed, then you chose to prioritize Animal Handling and Survival over Nature. The fact that you made that choice does not mean that you didn't also have the option to pick a different background, or use the "Customizing a Background" rules to swap out one of those two skills for Nature while keeping the rest of the Folk Hero background intact.



It does matter how your character got their skills, if we’re developing backgrounds and not just mechanically creating PCs. If your PC started out making their own way in the streets as a scout for the local thieves guild (Criminal background), but ended up, after a fortuitous set of circumstances put them in position to apprentice, as a Wizard; they wouldn’t also have been able to study Nature.
Class and background are purely mechanical concepts, designed for the player's use in creating characters. Once your Wizard has proficiency in the Nature skill, you're a Wizard who has studied nature. The fact that Nature is not on the class skill list just means nature is important to your character for reasons other than strictly Wizard-related ones. It's still a part of who your Wizard is a character. The people of the Forgotten Realms (or whatever setting you're playing) aren't going to go around pointing out that it isn't a class skill for you, and unless your DM starts implementing some weird house rules skill checks only care about what ability score and proficiency bonuses you have, not how you got there.


Your response as I understand it is “well don’t have them be a Criminal background, make a custom background that gives them Nature instead. Well, then, I guess my PC now wasn’t a scout for the local thieves guild but instead was studying Nature. So I had to give up the Background, and story, I wanted because Wizards can’t study Nature.
"I was a scout for the local thieves guild" seems like a perfectly good custom background to me. Swap out Deception for Nature (you're a scout, not the deceiving front-man), and keep the rest of the Criminal background.



To put this whole debate into a different context, let's examine an alternate universe hypothetical. In this hypothetical, instead of having most races get +2 to a specific ability score and +1 to a specific other ability score, most races get a +1 to two specific ability scores and all PCs get a +1 to an ability score from their background, with the "Customize a Background" option allowing you to switch where that +1 goes. Point buy mechanics remain unchanged, so you can only buy up to a 15. In this hypothetical, a player could get an ability score of 16 with any race/class combination through the use of backgrounds. I believe if 5e had used this hypothetical set-up from the start, nothing would have changed in Tasha's, because any race/class combo could meet what WotC now considers the minimum threshold for a viable character (+3 modifier in their primary stat).

[OldTrees1]

"I was a scout for the local thieves guild" seems like a perfectly good custom background to me. Swap out Deception for Nature (you're a scout, not the deceiving front-man), and keep the rest of the Criminal background.

And this works in practice.

Lux the Ex Guild Thief used a Custom Criminal background with Perception, Stealth, and Thieves Tools because they used to be a burglar for the Thieves Guild. They were not the deceiving front-man or the one running the gambling tables.

I used the final proficiency as a language they picked up during the incident that made them cease to be a Guild Thief and become a Paladin.

[Williamnot]

I think I saw somewhere that 3.5 races had one built-in atribute bonus and a floating one that you could assign anywhere.(I've never played 3.5 if you couldn't tell) I think that's the best approach to racial bonuses, rather than just having people assign bonuses to anything.

I do think the tools system is a bit lacking and would love to see more tools that aren't just "carpenters tools" or other artisan stuff. I'd like to see tools that are actually useful outside of roleplay like Thieves' Tools are.

However, I feel conflicted with how skill proficiencies are distributed at the moment. While I like that certain classes give certain skill proficiencies, I'm not sure I like the same thing with my backgrounds. Personally, I would let my players train 1 or 2 skills during downtime like you can with tools, or just let them pick any 2 skills as part of their backgrounds. Seems like the best solution to me.

[Chaosmancer]

Let’s say you wanted a Folk Hero Background for your Wizard. You could not then, RAW, also choose that your Wizard studied Nature instead of History, Medicine, Religion or Arcana. So, no, it’s not possible, RAW to become proficient in any skill you want with any class you want - you would have to sacrifice either your background or class.

That is where custom backgrounds can come in. "I want to be a Folk Hero, but instead of Animal Handling, I was studying much more broad aspects. Can I take Nature instead?"

Heck, actually, per RAW you don't even need to ask. Here is the full text:

You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5. (If you spend coin, you can’t also take the equipment package suggested for your class.) Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw. If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one.

The bolded part is the only time you need to work with the DM, changing you skills, tools, languages ect ect ect is all player choice.




It does matter how your character got their skills, if we’re developing backgrounds and not just mechanically creating PCs. If your PC started out making their own way in the streets as a scout for the local thieves guild (Criminal background), but ended up, after a fortuitous set of circumstances put them in position to apprentice, as a Wizard; they wouldn’t also have been able to study Nature.

Your response as I understand it is “well don’t have them be a Criminal background, make a custom background that gives them Nature instead. Well, then, I guess my PC now wasn’t a scout for the local thieves guild but instead was studying Nature. So I had to give up the Background, and story, I wanted because Wizards can’t study Nature.

That isn't how the custom background works though. You are still a scout for the local thieves guild. All you have to do is give up Deception or Stealth to take Nature. You keep literally everything else. You aren't a "custom background" you are a customized criminal background.

I admit, it takes a bit of massaging, but until you are at the point where there are 3 skills not on you class list that you want, this is pretty straightforward.

[Droppeddead]

None of this addresses my points, you’re just restating that there are ways to get certain skills during character creation.

Well, it does. You said that there should be wizards who haven't studied arcana, I pointed out that it is already possible to make a wizard without proficiency in arcana, and so on. The reason that you're getting the same answer is that you keep on asking the same questions.


None of this deals with the topic.

It does, actually.


The fact that Backgrounds are a thing doesn’t change that Class Skill lists are still reinforcing archetypes, which is the very thing WotC stated they’re trying to get away from.

As has been mentioned, they aren't. They wanted to move away from racial archetypes. And, as has also been mentioed, since D&D is a class-based game the system relies on there being built-in differences in the classes. Pure-class wizards will never get Extra Attack 2 that fighters get, Monks don't get ritual casting and so on. The reason that this does reinforce archetypes in the same way as "Elves are always dexy" is that the things that "reinforce archetypes" (ie, class skills) aren't mandatory and can be changed with the help of the rest of the character creation process. So, to sum it up, what you are after is already there, within the neccesary confines of the game (there might be some kind of classless D&D version out there, not sure haven't looked) it is already possible to create a wizard who breaks the archetype of them always learning arcana, for example.

[RSP]

That is where custom backgrounds can come in. "I want to be a Folk Hero, but instead of Animal Handling, I was studying much more broad aspects. Can I take Nature instead?"

Except in that example, Animal Handling was wanted. It was the PC studying Nature rather than one of the other “knowledge skills associated with being a Wizard.

You changing my example to “well let’s make it so that PC does not want Animal Handling” isn’t correctly addressing the example.

[Droppeddead]

Except in that example, Animal Handling was wanted. It was the PC studying Nature rather than one of the other “knowledge skills associated with being a Wizard.

You changing my example to “well let’s make it so that PC does not want Animal Handling” isn’t correctly addressing the example.

Then we are back at the point of "abilities also reflect your characters training". Your wizard will most likely have a fairly high int which means that they will know a bit about nature. If you want proficiency in that particular skill later on there are feats that can deal with that. Or are you asking for a way to get more skill proficiences than the rules allow at the start of teh game? Because that is also kind of part of the game, that there are limitations.

[OldTrees1]

Except in that example, Animal Handling was wanted. It was the PC studying Nature rather than one of the other “knowledge skills associated with being a Wizard.

You changing my example to “well let’s make it so that PC does not want Animal Handling” isn’t correctly addressing the example.

So this is a character where 3 skills of they 4 skills they wanted fell in the 2/3rds of skills not on the class skill list?

Yes that extreme case is not supported outside of Rule 0 (assuming feats and species don't address it).

However you passed many characters that did break the archetype before you reach the character that wants 3. So it makes sense if the authors did not consider it as pressing or significant of a topic. (plus the other factors)

[Chaosmancer]

Except in that example, Animal Handling was wanted. It was the PC studying Nature rather than one of the other “knowledge skills associated with being a Wizard.

You changing my example to “well let’s make it so that PC does not want Animal Handling” isn’t correctly addressing the example.

Sorry, I was skimming

""I want to be a Folk Hero, but instead of Survival, I was studying much more broad aspects. Can I take Nature instead?"

Fixed it, now you can have Animal Handling and Nature. The only possible issue comes if you want Animal Handling, Nature and Survival. That is harder to do without picking the right race.

But, it can be done with Human, Elf, Half-Elf, HAlf-Orc, Tiefling... basically any race that gives any skill, thanks to Tasha's