Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New D&D Next Playtest Packet Is Here!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KesselZero" data-source="post: 5990788" data-attributes="member: 6689976"><p>Agreed with all of this. I'm especially disappointed about the move away from dynamic skill rules, which was one of the things I'd been most excited about in 5e. Having a fixed skill list and set ability scores for use with those skills is going to quickly get us back into the problem of huge bonus disparities, especially now that you can increase your skill bonus up to a +7. That means that the difference between a character with a huge focus on a skill and one without could be +11 or more. In addition, with a limited number of general skills we get the 4e problem of maxing out a certain small set of "the best skills" (Perception, for example) as opposed to picking up more specific skills that are situationally useful and fit your character (a Mariner skill, for example). It feels like we're losing sight of the whole bounded accuracy thing.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Agreed. At first I actually thought (like many others) that your skill bonus <em>replaced</em> your ability score, which I thought was a really clever innovation. It's great to have high ability scores, but training is what matters. (You could include a rule that if the ability score is higher, you use that instead so you don't have +4 Dex rogues with a +3 to Stealth, but that would really depend on whether the system assumes PCs will have an 18 or higher in their primary stat.) It also eliminates the whole "low Wisdom rogue can't spy" issue without having to make a special rule just for rogues (so a low Wisdom fighter or assassin still can't spy?). But no, it's just a totally baffling way of saying "being trained in a skill gives you a +3."</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Probably because continuous advantage/disadvantage is too powerful. Somewhere (I think in a Rule-of-Three?) it was stated that it should generally cost an action to gain advantage for one roll. So getting multiple rounds of it for one action would be too strong.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>My reading was <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=3" target="_blank">#3</a> , but I could see <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2" target="_blank">#2</a> being true as well.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KesselZero, post: 5990788, member: 6689976"] Agreed with all of this. I'm especially disappointed about the move away from dynamic skill rules, which was one of the things I'd been most excited about in 5e. Having a fixed skill list and set ability scores for use with those skills is going to quickly get us back into the problem of huge bonus disparities, especially now that you can increase your skill bonus up to a +7. That means that the difference between a character with a huge focus on a skill and one without could be +11 or more. In addition, with a limited number of general skills we get the 4e problem of maxing out a certain small set of "the best skills" (Perception, for example) as opposed to picking up more specific skills that are situationally useful and fit your character (a Mariner skill, for example). It feels like we're losing sight of the whole bounded accuracy thing. Agreed. At first I actually thought (like many others) that your skill bonus [I]replaced[/I] your ability score, which I thought was a really clever innovation. It's great to have high ability scores, but training is what matters. (You could include a rule that if the ability score is higher, you use that instead so you don't have +4 Dex rogues with a +3 to Stealth, but that would really depend on whether the system assumes PCs will have an 18 or higher in their primary stat.) It also eliminates the whole "low Wisdom rogue can't spy" issue without having to make a special rule just for rogues (so a low Wisdom fighter or assassin still can't spy?). But no, it's just a totally baffling way of saying "being trained in a skill gives you a +3." Probably because continuous advantage/disadvantage is too powerful. Somewhere (I think in a Rule-of-Three?) it was stated that it should generally cost an action to gain advantage for one roll. So getting multiple rounds of it for one action would be too strong. My reading was [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=3"]#3[/URL] , but I could see [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2"]#2[/URL] being true as well. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New D&D Next Playtest Packet Is Here!
Top