I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the argument coming out of some forums regarding the 4th Ed. skill list, in that mainly the list is too short to create fully fleshed out and distinct characters. I’m not buying it, as there are many ways to accomplish just that without needing too much crunch to get in the way. In a way, it seems to me that a certain number of players are too dependent on crunch dictating who their character is and what he’s all about. But I think there are ways to bring life to your character without needing that many numbers. As a DM, you should be aware of how to effectively use the skill list in different ways in order to please your former 3e players.
I’m of the camp that thinks the skill list that’s presented in 4th Ed. is pretty complete, because we have to keep in mind that the skills themselves have a certain halo effect that overlap into multiple uses and situations, and that’s the key in applying skill checks in your particular games. An Athletics check has many uses, perhaps even uses that go beyond what the PHB presents. When a player comes up with a particular situation that off the top you may not see presented as an example in the rule book, think of this halo effect and what skill best applies. There isn’t a lack of skills at fault here, but a lack of imagination.
Me? I think the best solution is to talk directly with the player and work on a character together. As a DM, you are bringing the story of this PC to life, and are crafting the world that he lives in, so why not have a small hand in his “birth”? Here’s the examples I brought up in a forum, after someone mentioned the lack in 4e of a Use Rope skill from 3e, which basically let you tie knots, tie people up, and secure grappling hooks: You as a DM, let’s assume your PC, Bob, was born in a coastal town. Together with Bob’s player, why not develop a nice background for Bob that assumes he was born the son of a fisherman. Bob’s dad would take him when he was younger on their small boat, to fish. Over time, Bob further developed the talents that his father passed on to him, mainly using the ropes on a boat, tying knots, fishing, spotting decent areas to throw a line, etc… Bob eventually outgrew fishing and became a Fighter by trade, but he never forgot where he came from, nor what he learned. Is it so unreasonable to say that Bob knows how to tie a knot? Do we really need to take the time out of the game to even ask if he can do it, and waste time rolling on that? To me that’s not fun. Maybe if it’s crucial or life or death skill challenge. But on the whole, I wouldn’t bother. His background would automatically let him tie the rope, then an athletics roll would see if he can actually climb it.
Another great thing 4th Ed. did was include the “backgrounds” in the Player’s Handbook 2. With backgrounds, you and your player’s can work out where the PC comes from, and if that grants him or her extra bonuses to his skill rolls. You come from a certain region, great, you get a plus to your history rolls when dealing with that region. That’s a common sense option that honestly feels like it should have been in the first PHB.
Ultimately, don’t let a player converting from 3e to 4e bog down your game with skill discussions, as there are plenty of ways to create the fleshed out characters player’s crave within the existing ruleset. You just have to look for it.
www. Newbie DM .com 
Neal Hebert
July 21, 2009
See, I think this is where you can really tell Mike Mearls used to work on Unknown Armies.
One of the biggest points in 4e’s favor over 3e is, in my book, this Unknown Armies-like attitude toward skills. What you call a “halo effect,” Unknown Armies calls a “Skill Penumbra” – i.e., that the numeric value associated with a skill doesn’t attempt to model one’s narrow application of that skill, but that it suggests the degree of competence/expertise the PC possesses in a field represented by the skill.
Now, UA’s handling of this was a bit crazier than D&D’s – UA eliminated skill lists entirely, and instructed players to just make up their skills during character creation. For example, a “Struggle” skill called “Dirty Boxing” feels a lot different than a skill called “Stabby McStabStab,” even though both use identical mechanics.
4e is a lot closer to this ideal (and for me it is an ideal) than 3e – and I think part of it is the rejection of simulation, and the rest is the endorsement of skill penumbras (which becomes a lot more plausible and intuitive once you get rid of the DC system governing mundane tasks).
The other big UAism in 4e that I love is the assumption that PCs don’t need rules for accomplishing mundane tasks – PCs succeed at shit like that now because a hero wouldn’t worry about rolling too low to craft a breastplate.
But yeah, I’m totally with you on the strengths of 4e’s skills.
newbiedm
July 21, 2009
I kind of like that system you are describing for character creation. It’s even more unique to the particular character. Nice.
” I’m not sneaking, i’m footpaddin’ ”
I like that.
Neal Hebert
July 21, 2009
Unknown Armies is good shit, man. Their GM Advice section was the best thing in print in a world before Robin’s Laws. Even considering the quality of that and the 4e DMG, I still find myself referring back to UA’s GM Advice section on establishing mood and creating themes for my campaign.
Their method of creating campaign-long mysteries and plots should have been coopted by Wizards and placed in their DMG, too. I have yet to see a GM book give better advice on that topic than Unknown Armies.
You should find a copy of the UA2e rules – I guarantee it’ll make your DMing better, and make you think about magic differently.
-neal
Hungry
July 21, 2009
I think 4e has nearly enough skills. Then again, I’m a skill-based gamer, not a power-based gamer, so 4e is a paradigm in gaming that I don’t really hold near and dear to my heart. To be honest, I think GURPS barely has enough skills to create a properly fleshed-out character. Just my two cents…
Wyatt
July 21, 2009
I agree a lot on the idea of a skill penumbra. When I look at a giant skill list that’s when I think “Christ, I’m never going to be able to do what I want with this.” When I see a small skill list it’s a lot more inviting to me. Part of this is that I always felt simulation put a clamp around my brain rather than freeing me to do whatever I want.
Bartoneus
July 22, 2009
I’m just happy that now if I want to be a professional juggler fighter in game, it doesn’t mean I have to suck at everything else!
drchrisheard
July 22, 2009
I prefer the smaller list, though I’m not yet entirely sure how to model “craft” and “profession” type things under a “skill penumbra”—or whether it’s even necessary to do so.
Neal Hebert
July 22, 2009
The way the penumbra worked in UA, Chris, was that (in percentile numbers) a score of 15 in a skill means a character could do something and always succeed in normal circumstances – so a Drive skill of 15 means that any American UA character would not have to roll a drive check when driving to the grocery store. Dice get involved when any externalities get involved – making it to the grocery store while your wife is having a baby in the backseat would be one such example; making it to the grocery store while blindfolded might be another; doing it while a thug holds a gun to your head and there’s a bomb strapped under your hood another.
In 4eD&D terms, I handle skills the same way. Training in a skill means that, barring exceptional externalities, the PCs simply succeed at what they’re doing. Period. That +5 mod to the roll guarantees success unless there’s something big going down to distract them (like a monster in a combat situation). Larger modifiers mean that the character can achieve heights with a skill that mortals only dream of – so a character with a Nature modifier of +20 can feed the group off the land without much effort, but could also put his ear to the ground and convince a stone to tell its secrets if he rolls well.
But where I really break the UA model is in combat – I want my PCs to do crazy shit like jump up and grab the dragon’s leg so that they can climb up its body and smote it from the sky with their hammer. UA is a game of high stakes, and PCs are highly fucked up and prone to fail spectacularly; D&D, honestly, isn’t that sort of game.
Going with this intuition has really helped me out in play. When one of my players tried to do the “climb up the dragon” bit and failed the skill check last game, by rights he should have failed to climb the dragon – only that’s not heroic. So I ruled that he had caught hold of the dragon’s leg and was dangling from it while the dragon hovered off the ground, and he had to spend the next turn climbing up the dragon in mid-air.
It went great, and the player thanked me for assuming that his character was a hero and recognizing that it isn’t heroic or particularly competent for his character to fall flat on his ass when he tries to do something outside the box.
Bartoneus
July 23, 2009
Neal: That’s exactly how I try to run my 4E game with skills, along the lines of the “say yes” rule. I’m probably not quite to the point of heroics that I’d like to be as a DM, but I’d like to think I’m getting there – I constantly let players scale walls, buildings, jump gaps, and improvise to have much better chances of getting done what they want to do.
With regards to profession skills, if any player in 4E comes to me and tells me they want their character to be a trained blacksmith, basket weaver, juggler, whatever then I’m more than happy to incorporate that into the game without any skills involved whatsoever. Most of the proficiency/skill of those things I base on level, time dedicated to it, and maybe a key skill associated.
Philo Pharynx
December 9, 2009
The opposite of a system with a few skills is a system with too many skills. I’ve played in both. Take 3.5 as an example. We’ve all seen characters who have diplomacy, bluff, intimidate and sense motive through the roof. And then they try and ask a few questions. Whoops, they forgot to take gather information, so they become all fumble-tongued. 4e reduced this naturally by adding half your level to this, but reducing the skills list goes even further. Between class, backgrounds, feats and character history you should have a good idea what the character is good at. If need be, have them roll a stat check and give them +5 if you think they’d have some familiarity with it. One specific example I saw was when bards were introduced, people moaned about not having perform. I simply said you use the appropriate interaction skill – Diplomacy to make people feel good, Intimidate to make a song about how invicible the fighter is, etc.