Post-Tashas Skills

[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.

[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.

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.

Spoiler: What I Imagine

Show

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:

Spoiler: Customizing Backgrounds

Show

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.