It's not particularly rational but one thing, besides feats and multi-classing, that has always bugged me about latter-day versions of D&D is Skills.
I love BRP, GURPS, Traveller... but if I'm going to play a Class/Level game I'd prefer it to stick with those (IMO) implicit limitations... no multi-classing and no skill lists to get around those narrow mechanical definitions.
None of the various OSR games I love have them... and I feel like they are the one thing blocking my enthusiasm for Core/Basic 5e (besides the fast healing that looks to be an easy fix).

5e's Proficiencies idea doesn't bother me... but I'd rather use it like DCC's 'trained/untrained' roles. I'd like something where the Basic Stats, Class and Background establish a general sense of what the PC oughtta be capable of. If the Player can convincingly reference those past/present elements when attempting something he'd get to apply the Proficiency bonus.
I'd say he also should be able to reference past sessions to pull such capabilities from ("Remember last month when we were doing all that mountain climbing and I didn't fall to my death? Can I use my Proficiency for climbing stuff now?).

It would save a bit of real-estate on the character sheet. Stop any future Skills bloat in its tracks... and annoy me just that little bit less... to the point where I think I'd be a LOT more inclined to run Basic 5e.
Is there some huge elephant in the rules I'm ignoring that would make that a horrible idea? It seems like 5e is just a step away from dropping the skill list already.

Like I said, it's not a particularly rational concern... but it irks me.

I know that feel. I get that from the PHB and all the things you can do every few levels. Stick to basic, use the core mechanic... Doesn't seem too worrying.

Could just run it like 2e NWP straight from the PHB, where having such a skill is assumed to be professional level. Then you hand-waveium pretty much everything DC 15 and below for those skills. Only roll for DC 20 and above as shifted; DC 20 turns to DC 10, DC 25 into DC 15, and DC 30 into DC 20. Rogue Expertise shifts it an additional 5.

Or hand-waveium that players just succeed where skills would be involved, though that can weaken some exploration and social encounters. Or whatever % die roll that works for you.

Curious though, how are you to resolve contesting rolls, particularly combat functions, such as: Hide (Stealth v. Perception), Shove (Athletics v. Athletics/Acrobatics), etc.? Highest roll wins? Roll under stat blackjack? Compared difference of stat v. roll?

As it is now it's basically only a skill system in the loosest sense anyway. Seems to me the only way to make it less obtrusive is just ignore the provided lists of what those things are and go by feel (and I'd be willing to bet that in >90% of cases it'd be the stuff they gave already.) It's not like you're even building around skills, it just enumerates what, say, an elf who is a bard with a criminal history is most likely to know how to do.

Seems to me the work's nearly done for you already. I mean I suppose you could dispose of the provided lists in a class or background, but I'd be willing to bet that in >90% of cases the times when you'd be applying proficiency would be to the same or similar tasks.

Quote from: Opaopajr;785581Curious though, how are you to resolve contesting rolls, particularly combat functions, such as: Hide (Stealth v. Perception), Shove (Athletics v. Athletics/Acrobatics), etc.? Highest roll wins? Roll under stat blackjack? Compared difference of stat v. roll?

I'd probably just go with the highest roll (including Proficiency, if there seems any justification for it). That's how DCC does it.

Quote from: LibraryLass;785585Seems to me the work's nearly done for you already. I mean I suppose you could dispose of the provided lists in a class or background, but I'd be willing to bet that in >90% of cases the times when you'd be applying proficiency would be to the same or similar tasks.

Maybe... but then, again, I don't see the downside of just ditching the list and going with implications of Background/Class/Stats. I do think most or all of the work is done... unless I'm missing something it just moves it from a defined rule to a ruling and maybe opens things up a bit, gets eyes off the Character Sheet.

I'm not at all a "skills" guy. My OD&D game had skills exactly once, then I threw out the system. I just don't like skills in my RPGs ... until 5E.

Have you played 5E yet? I ask because skills in 5E are a little different from those in some earlier editions. In 3E, for example, you have skill points to spend in order to boost certain skills and this becomes just another way to min/max a character. In 5E the skill numbers are pretty static, based on your stats (which can slighly change every 4 levels) and your general proficiency number (which will change by +1 every 4 levels) but you don't get to "put points into" skills.

This means that 5E skills are a single little modstly-static chart on a character sheet. They aren't the long and painful mess that they are in other editions.

Quote from: Simlasa;785588I'd probably just go with the highest roll (including Proficiency, if there seems any justification for it). That's how DCC does it.

Maybe... but then, again, I don't see the downside of just ditching the list and going with implications of Background/Class/Stats. I do think most or all of the work is done... unless I'm missing something it just moves it from a defined rule to a ruling and maybe opens things up a bit, gets eyes off the Character Sheet.

I guess. It just seems like it makes things a bit more... haggle-y. Which can be lots of fun and all, but can also slow things down a little. I guess if you're on the same wavelength as your group it'll probably work fine. I dunno, give it a shot and tell me how it works out for ya, I guess.

Quote from: Simlasa;785588I'd probably just go with the highest roll (including Proficiency, if there seems any justification for it). That's how DCC does it.

Maybe... but then, again, I don't see the downside of just ditching the list and going with implications of Background/Class/Stats. I do think most or all of the work is done... unless I'm missing something it just moves it from a defined rule to a ruling and maybe opens things up a bit, gets eyes off the Character Sheet.

I guess there's not any major downside, as long as you don't mind a few moments' effort here and there. I confess myself something of a lazy GM, but in as positive a sense as it's possible for that term to apply. Maybe "effortless GM?" "Taoist GM?" Something like that.

Quote from: Simlasa;785576It would save a bit of real-estate on the character sheet.

Have you looked at the 5th edition character sheet?  You're saving half an inch by about an inch and a half, and that's if you're using Wizard's character sheet.  On an index card, you'd save the room it took you to write "Religion, Perception, Stealth, Athletics" or some-such.

That being said... sure.  Drop the skills.  Let someone convince you they should be skilled in something, and let them make the stat roll with advantage.  Done and done.

Skills in 5e are already essentially binary: You either got them (and add your proficiency, as you do for attacks and saving throws) or you don't (and then don't add them).

The only complication beyond that in a feat-less game is the expertise of Bards and Rogues.
When spells like Guidance or Hex modify skill checks, it is usually just advantage or disadvantage, not anything that requires more math.

I'd claim it is even simpler than the proto-skills in earlier editions, like Thief skills or the dreaded non-weapon proficiencies.

I'd give it a try first by RAW, then house-rule as necessary.

I've considered a microlite 5e where you essentially have proficiency for doing stuff that fits under class or background.

So... sneak around as a Fighter? Not proficient. Oh, you have burglar background? Sure!

Then again, 'skills' kinda serve for that, just outlining which particular common tasks you 'mean' by 'stuff your class/background is good at.'

Quote from: Simlasa;785576...always bugged me about latter-day versions of D&D is Skills...

I couldn't agree more. I'm a "less is more" kind of gamer - if there are too many options too spelled out I feel constrained that all the rest of the possibilities of the universe are discouraged. I tend to feel better in older versions of D&D because there are fewer spelled-out options, and therefore felt like there were a lot more options.

I GM a lot more than I play, and I notice the same thing among beginning players - if there's all this crap on their sheet, like a skill list, then they keep going through the skill list until they find something agreeable and then verbally 'press the button'. If they don't have that skill list, then they imagine responding as their character.

I'm getting set to run a 5th edition game soon, and I'm considering the same thing you are, if it's worth it just to say "we'll base proficiency application on what is understandable from your race, class and background", or to actually have people write down the 5 or so skills they get. I'm not sure where I'm going to fall on the issue, yet.

//Panjumanju

What I worry, with the freeform approach, is constant debate and the possibility of 'whomever can bullshit the GM best gets lots of goodies.'

I mean, to an extent, 'these are skills I have' _is_ an agreement/consensus about what stuff we've decided my character is good at, and what stuff he isn't.

I've run _very very_ freeform games, to the point where there wasn't even a system as such. And, well, those have their own drawbacks. One of which is that players can feel a little less empowered, and the GM can have a heavy load of trying to maintain a body of precedent.

At this point I strongly believe in a middle ground, where you have some structure to provide consistency and not need constant house ruling, but give folks an easy way to sidestep the system.


I'm not advocating an approach, just talking through my reactions to the idea.

Yeah, that's definitely a potential worry. Another reason why it's important for GM and players to get on the same length and establish trust.