What's on your mind?
+ Log in or register to post
Results 21 to 30 of 117
Friday, 28th September, 2012, 08:23 AM #21
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
I initially loved all skill developments throughout the editions, but am now an advocate for no list at all.
Simply let Backgrounds indicate when you get some sort of bonus (like the first playtest). I am no longer keen on a list tied to a specific Ability Score.
4E went too far. I mean why bother with skills like Athletics - it is a Strength check - there were no other skills for Strength.
3E was to finicky for sure. I agree that taking Dancing did not seem right for adventuring, even though a noble elf should probably do this. (We introduced a system of Background Skills).
Anyway, Noble should cover that now. Yes, add +3 when at a masquerade, but not tribal rain dancing. I am all for Backgrounds just indicating areas for bonuses.
I can understand others saying this isn't specific enough (and there have been sev threads on this already), but it suits my GM style very well. Even 3-4 years ago, I would have argued against removing skill list, but I have finally seen the light of all those that used to state tacking a skill system to a class system doesn't work so well.Homepage for all my roleplaying:http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/. Includes many GM Tools, Character Sheets, etc for DnD & Savage Worlds.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Friday, 28th September, 2012, 08:56 AM #22
Superhero (Lvl 15)
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Read 0 Reviews
ø Ignore Li Shenron
I think people should simply stop seeing skills as a requirement, and start seeing them as an opportunity.
Having the climb skill trained means that you get a useful +3 bonus on climbing.
Always thinking in terms of "not having the climb skill means I suck at climbing" is not understanding that all that matters is the relative effectiveness between different characters in different scenarios.
"There is no survival without order, there is no evolution without chaos."
"You have to see past the RAW to understand the rules of the game."
"And rules are OVERRATED by the way!
Friday, 28th September, 2012, 09:44 AM #23
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
I think the initial idea behind skills in Next was a very good one. Rather than have a long list of skills the players should state what they plan to do and the dm chooses an ability to roll against.
I abhorred skills in 3e. I don't want to have to track dozens of them ever again.
Giving players a list of skills means they will be trying to use that list to the exclusion of anything else. Even proficiencies in AD&D took some of the spontaneity away from the game.
Perhaps instead of a listing of skills players could instead choose to focus on being more charismatic or wise or intelligent and gain bonuses to those things related to them such as bluffing or being more perceptive or athletic.
Some things probably should have some established focus such as lock picking and trap removal but most of the things people call skills are more general than the skill description would allow which makes an exhaustive list that much more necessary.
I'd just as soon do with out them.
Friday, 28th September, 2012, 10:43 AM #24
Guide (Lvl 11)
For me, the requirement that something be a skill is not:
It's more:Can you imagine someone with high [key stat] who sucks at [skill]?
I am in favour of a larger, semi-closed skill list rather than an open system or tightly closed list. That is, I think free reign to come up with any skills you like will lead to more debate at the table as to whether a particular skill applies to a situation or not (I have knowledge engineering, that should let me disarm traps!). A say semi-closed because I have no objections to new skills being created where necessary, but the core should try to list everything sensible.Could training and practice allow you to be better at [skill] than your [ability] might otherwise suggest?
Something that is absolutely essential, however, is to detach specific abilities from specific skills. When you get a +3 to do something, it depends on the context of what you're doing as to which ability is most relevant. For instance, +3 to Perception says that you are alert - it should apply to Wisdom checks to notice you're going past a secret door and to Intelligence checks when you're actively searching for traps.
I'm not a fan of the current system of 4x +3 either, I would rather see more things you are trained in at a lower bonus (so 6x +2) or a free-to-spend points system with a list of things you may have picked up in your background (with some points being completely free). I suppose I wouldn't object either to separating 'useful in adventuring' skills from 'background' skills, but I'd much rather see the 'background' skills given uses that come up during adventuring. Sure, Perception will always be relevant, but Blacksmithing could be used whenever manufactured metal objects are involved (weapons, armour, large mechanisms).
Everyone is weird, but those who are weird in the same way call themselves normal.
Friday, 28th September, 2012, 10:50 AM #25
Defender (Lvl 8)
I would like them to trim the Lore skills, almost going into Pottery Lore territory.
Friday, 28th September, 2012, 10:54 AM #26
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
I think this is fairly close to the Hero Quest traits system? Which is so extensive it even covers combat . . .
I think D&D Next will not go this far, but might stretch to a floating skills system, with a (hopefully short) base skill list for the published backgrounds.
Friday, 28th September, 2012, 11:17 AM #27
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
Fate makes you pay to activate Aspects; and in both games, the GM can use things against you. The "Soft Spoken Innocent" isn't going to be taken seriously by the ruthless crime lord; the "Farmboy" shouldn't know how to behave around the elven maiden. I agree, it takes an experienced GM (and probably players) to make it work.
Friday, 28th September, 2012, 11:22 AM #28
Defender (Lvl 8)
To me the soft-spoken thing sounds like a great character development opportunity--the innocent who continually "spams" lies ceases to remain innocent...
Friday, 28th September, 2012, 12:02 PM #29
The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)
My bard's singing ability can play a similar sort of role.
The game has to make a choice as to the sites of action resolution that it will support, and how they will be handled: the "three pillars".
If they want to make musical talent matter, rather than a skill it might perhaps be a trait: anyone can be a musician, but only some with the "jongleur" background can automatically get gigs in pubs, invited to nobles' feast halls, etc.
Friday, 28th September, 2012, 01:08 PM #30
Guide (Lvl 11)
I've gone back and forth on how I want skills in D&D to be. I slightly prefer the 4e way to the 3e way (mostly because of the binary nature of skill training), but both leave me dissatisfied. I always assumed I'd like broad skills better (because I tend to prefer broad skills), but I've come to the realization that narrow skills would probably work better because of the vague nature of D&D ability scores.
It's that pairing of broad and unfocused ability scores with broad and unfocused skills that drive me up the wall.