Five additional skills for D&D 5e

[Abracadangit]

Except that the pool of places they can put their bonus in (ie the total number of choices they get to make) is sharply limited. So if you split skills, instead of being good at all of History, now you're only good at History (Lower Lumbsbottom from 234 to 346). Which is a much more limited set. By increasing the pool of choices, you've devalued each and every choice.

Crafting? That's a tool proficiency.
Warfare? Not a proficiency at all--that's up to the player entirely. You're not making checks there, and if you are, they're regular Intelligence ones.

Civics? That's definitionally History. Just like Arcana catches all the "history of magic" stuff, History catches all the political stuff.

Leadership? Not a proficiency, because it doesn't involve making checks most of the time, and if it does, it involves one of the other Charisma (X) checks based on how you're leading.

Ok -- when I say "adding more knowledge skills," I don't mean adding a skill for Interpretive Philosophy, and a skill for Dwarven History, and a skill for Elven History, etc. This is what I meant about not getting too hair-splitty, right. Conversely, I could say "Well why don't we just fuse Arcana and History and Religion and Nature into one 'Lore' skill, who needs all those fiddly knowledge skills." I don't think that's your argument, but by using your tactic, I can make your argument look silly, too. There's no right or wrong answer, it's whatever feels right for the kind of game you're running, and if the players are on board with it, you're good to go. If the players AREN'T on board with it, that's a different story.

See, you interpret Crafting as a tool proficiency, but Greywander even goes out of their way to say "Yeah, I know there are tool proficiencies, but I envision this doing something different that isn't accounted for with tool proficiencies." No one's empirically right or wrong here -- this is all interpretation.

I don't understand why Warfare flat-out "can't be a proficiency" because "you're not making checks." The party finds a soldier's corpse in the forest, and want to know who he fights for, based off of the insignia on his shield. Boom, Warfare check. Yes, in a game that's lacking this skill, that could very well be History or a pure Intelligence, but if you have Warfare in your game, then there's a new button that talks to this matter directly. Yes, Greywander knows it's not in the core game, that's why they're adding it.

Civics is History? PHB says History is to "recall lore about historical events, legendary people, ancient kingdoms, past disputes, recent wars, and lost civilizations." Your idea that History includes Civics is an interpretation that falls outside the ideas presented by the PHB, while Greywander has a different interpretation. Neither one is valid or invalid.

Leadership isn't a check in the default games or in your games, but that doesn't mean someone else couldn't conceivably have it in theirs, especially in a military-themed campaign where a player can rouse the troops with a fiery monologue. Your game might call it Performance or Persuasion, but again -- Greywander's game could involve a lot of these scenarios, so they decided to make it a skill.

The core of your arguments seems to be "Well these aren't skills in the default game and they're not skills I would use in my game, ergo they couldn't work as skills ever." I even admitted in my breakdown that I probably wouldn't use Civics in my game, but it still might work in Greywander's. These are all questions of interpretation and style and feel, but it feels like you're jumping in to say these are empirically wrong from a factual standpoint.

I apologize if I've misinterpreted your tone.

[stoutstien]

Honestly, I'm all for combining all the information recalling skills into one single proficiency.

[Abracadangit]

Honestly, I'm all for combining all the information recalling skills into one single proficiency.

Ha ha! Nooooooooo

...if that's your style, by all means. Can I ask why, though? I enjoy the idea that a wizard knows about magical theory, spellbooks, and another wizard's research notes (Arcana), while a cleric knows about deities & demigods, the rites and prayers of a given faith, and mythology (Religion). I feel like these distinctions give both of these characters unique areas where their knowledge is useful, making them feel more individualized. Again -- I wouldn't want to run hogwild with 30 knowledge skills for every little thing, but I do enjoy some meaningful & thematic variety.

[stoutstien]

Ha ha! Nooooooooo

...if that's your style, by all means. Can I ask why, though? I enjoy the idea that a wizard knows about magical theory, spellbooks, and another wizard's research notes (Arcana), while a cleric knows about deities & demigods, the rites and prayers of a given faith, and mythology (Religion). I feel like these distinctions give both of these characters unique areas where their knowledge is useful, making them feel more individualized. Again -- I wouldn't want to run hogwild with 30 knowledge skills for every little thing, but I do enjoy some meaningful & thematic variety.

The main reason why I don't mind combining them into one is because I don't like them as system for recalling information at all. When the skills are applied to seeking out new information they are fine but why the heck does the source of the information have any regard on your ability to recall it in the moment when you need it? We could say the scope of Christmas sees represent the possibility of you ever being exposed to that information but once again we run to the issue of the large range of information that would be present in any or all of them. So taking arcana as an example, you could keep it in the game as a practical application of arcane magic and just make history a catch all for info recall. I know plenty of mechanical engineers that have a sound working knowledge of it who couldn't tell me the origins of the screw or what's the oldest known example of a civilization using electricity. Somebody who specializes in history has a much greater chance of being exposed that information in a way that they might actually retain it

Secondly there's no real distinction in magic which is the laws of reality in most D&D settings. If you want to use the optional rules to identify a spell it's arcana regardless of who's casting. If there's no distinction between arcane Divine or others when it comes to the source of the magic why would the information recalling magic be different. It's one of the byproducts of simplifying the system.

Thirdly I hate any stop of gameplay when it is regarding the distinction between the player and character knowledge unless it's actually the purpose of that encounter/arch. In other words unless the quest is actually tracking down truly ancient or lost information I don't want to deal with it it adds nothing to the experience of playing the game that I would consider positive or worth mine or my players time. Stopping to roll to see what they know is just stupid. If you're running almost purely as a passive skill it's better but still not great.

[Abracadangit]

The main reason why I don't mind combining them into one is because I don't like them as system for recalling information at all. When the skills are applied to seeking out new information they are fine but why the heck does the source of the information have any regard on your ability to recall it in the moment when you need it? We could say the scope of Christmas sees represent the possibility of you ever being exposed to that information but once again we run to the issue of the large range of information that would be present in any or all of them. So taking arcana as an example, you could keep it in the game as a practical application of arcane magic and just make history a catch all for info recall. I know plenty of mechanical engineers that have a sound working knowledge of it who couldn't tell me the origins of the screw or what's the oldest known example of a civilization using electricity. Somebody who specializes in history has a much greater chance of being exposed that information in a way that they might actually retain it

Secondly there's no real distinction in magic which is the laws of reality in most D&D settings. If you want to use the optional rules to identify a spell it's arcana regardless of who's casting. If there's no distinction between arcane Divine or others when it comes to the source of the magic why would the information recalling magic be different. It's one of the byproducts of simplifying the system.

Thirdly I hate any stop of gameplay when it is regarding the distinction between the player and character knowledge unless it's actually the purpose of that encounter/arch. In other words unless the quest is actually tracking down truly ancient or lost information I don't want to deal with it it adds nothing to the experience of playing the game that I would consider positive or worth mine or my players time. Stopping to roll to see what they know is just stupid. If you're running almost purely as a passive skill it's better but still not great.

Word. It's funny, I LIKE knowledge skills, but I also agree with everything you said.

Making people roll to recall information is lame -- then when they inevitably fail, you have to be like "Well, uh, never mind. You don't know anything about it. Sorry I asked." Instead, I like to use knowledge skills to shape and flavor scene exposition for the party, as they enter a new area or discover an item. "Alaric, with your background in arcane theory, you know that these writings on the wall are..." etc. In other words, it's virtually all passive, unless you're trying to use the skill in an active way (i.e. using Arcana to attempt the experiment detailed in the mage's research notes). Making everyone roll to remember rote facts or information makes knowledge skills even more useless than they already are.

Yeah, the dumping of all magic into Arcana is lame and almost, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of having Nature and Religion skills. Like there should be those three skills for the three magic families, right? Why do we even have them if not for distinguishing magic types? I rule that if the caster is using divine magic, you can use Religion, and if the caster is using primal magic, you can use Nature, but I know that's not RAW.

Anyway, your grievances are legit, and I understand where you're coming from.

[sandmote]

On the latest turn of the conversation, I've moved a few items from Arana to the other former Knowledge skills. If you do want a more specific system of knowledge, I would maybe knock off how Pathfinder 2e handles its Lore skill.

Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes.

I still have arcana apply to studying and understanding methods of interplanar travel, but have made information on environments and inhabitants of the outer planes use religion and those for the inner planes use nature.

Similarly, I went back to 3.5e and broke up knowledge about creatures of different types across the skills, mostly based on the nearest fields of study of 3.5e's knowledge skill:

• Arcana allows a bonus when recalling information on Constructs, Dragons, and Aberrations.
• History allows a bonus when recalling information on some Monstrosities, Giants, and various Humanoids.
• Religion allows a bonus when recalling information on Undead, Celestials, and Fiends
• Nature allows a bonus when recalling information on covers Beasts, Fey, Plants, Oozes, Elementals, some Monstrosities, and some unnatural conditions of the wilds, like lycanthropy.

Please note that these are generic default options. As one example, I would allow a PC who fervently follows a moon deity to apply their proficiency in Religion on a roll to recall information on lycanthropes.

The main reason why I don't mind combining them into one is because I don't like them as system for recalling information at all.

If this bothers you I'd make them mostly be passive checks. Personally I like that is makes it feel like people with a basic understanding on a particular subject still have gaps in their knowledge (and even then I usually wont allow a roll if there's no sensible way the PC could have encountered information on a subject).

---

In response to greywander's ideas for additional skills, I would agree a name like "Mercantilism," might be more thematically appropriate than "Business," but the idea does seem a like a good skill to add.

Warfare seems to consist half of uses I give Survival to better differentiate it from Nature and half of uses I grant as part of the Ranger's Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer features. Being able to plan supply lines is a different beast depending on the environment, and different groups of creatures are going to build fundamentally different defenses. As an example, I doubt a sound grasp of pushing through dwarven tunnels would help much in assaulting a treetop elven village.

[Greywander]

@Greywander--I think you're misinterpreting the proficiency rules. The DM is supposed to decide if the proficiency bonus applies in every case. All printed proficiencies (yes, including language and weapon/armor proficiencies) are just one way that proficiency bonus might apply. Saying that someone can apply their proficiency bonus to something that they're not formally "skilled" in is totally RAW, not a houserule at all.

Remember, skills are not fundamental. Every such check is an Ability check, first and foremost. And multiple (or no) sources of proficiency might apply, and players are expected and encouraged to ask if they can apply a different proficiency. In fact, the DM is recommended[1] to allow it as long as they have some sort of explanation of how it will work. Skills are not hard-coded.

[1] the DMG contains no rules for DMs. The system contains no rules for DMs. Only recommendations.

Alright, I'll concede this point. I think the point still stands that adding a few extra skills that cover topics not already covered will make the DM's job easier, but I can see how this could also reduce how often you get to add your proficiency bonus. For example, it's pretty common for History to be used to cover Civics and some aspects of Business, because it really is the closest thing if you had to pick a skill to represent those. And maybe separate History and Civics skills would be too narrow? It's definitely worth debating.

Nature is another skill that feels like it's too broad, as it covers everything from physics to geology to ecology to zoology. At the same time, I feel like Nature is less used than most other knowledge skills, so it doesn't really need to be nerfed. ¯\(ಠ_ಠ)/¯

Making people roll to recall information is lame

Passive checks were made for this sort of thing. The DM can just give out the relevant information without ever needing to make the player role, based solely on their passive scores. Then, you only need to roll when you're trying to do something related to that skill. Alternatively, the DM can use passive scores when describing something, and call for a roll if the player asks "do I know X?"

[Kane0]

Rule of thumb: for every 3-4 new skills you introduce to the list you should probably give characters one additional skill proficiency to cover them, the same way you would increase the point buy for using honor/sanity or whatever other additional stats.