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
Playtest Update
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="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5956972" data-attributes="member: 59506"><p>I can see their idea especially running into a problem if one's Ability bonus is higher than one's Skill bonus from training. Even if you just take the one that's highest, you lose out on one or the other, which doesn't seem very fair. You either find out that your decision to go with a high Ability Score was useless, or having training in the Skill is useless.</p><p> </p><p>What other problems are you seeing in that "can of worms"...?<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p>I was thinking of this as a good fix (I already posted this at WotC):</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Any Skill in which you have a bonus is considered "Trained". A Trained Skill provides an initial bonus of +5 (rather than +3)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">When making Skill Checks, you add your bonus from your skill with the modifier from the appropriate attribute (determined by your DM), and add to a D20 roll. Exception: ignore <em>negative</em> Ability Modifiers if making a check with a "Trained" Skill. (...in other words, only add positive Ability Modifiers when making a Check with a "Trained" Skill.)</li> </ul><p>This has the advantage of basically keeping the system as is (mechanically), but addressing the problem of a high ability score character being better at a Skill Check than a "Trained" character.</p><p> </p><p>Someone Trained in a skill will most always have a better chance at a check than someone with a high natural Ability score, and at worst have the same chance as someone with a maxed out Ability score. But, it still maintains differentiation among characters of the same class.</p><p> </p><p>For example: The Rogue with a Wisdom of 8...-1 modifier...would ignore the -1 and just have the +5 bonus for Training in the skill, while the high Wisdom Cleric...lets say a 20 for a +5 bonus...would only tie the Rogue with Training. The Rogue would have an extra +1 over the 18 Wisdom Cleric. Also, the high Wisdom Rogue will be significantly better than the low Wisdom Rogue on the same check. (one can replace any other class, ability score, or skill in the example...it's about trained skills compared to natural talent...)</p><p> </p><p>This makes sense to me. The trained character is almost always going to be better, and at the worst will tie a character with a maxed out score (natural talent).</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>What do you guys think?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Also, I completely agree with Li Shenron, about not overusing the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. I think the designers need to be very careful about making sure there aren't too many things that provide this. I think it's important to make sure that advantage/disadvantage situations don't become common occurances, especially to the point where every roll could end up having either advantage or disadvantage. It would definitely diminish or eliminate the "coolness" factor of the mechanic.</p><p> </p><p><img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="El Mahdi, post: 5956972, member: 59506"] I can see their idea especially running into a problem if one's Ability bonus is higher than one's Skill bonus from training. Even if you just take the one that's highest, you lose out on one or the other, which doesn't seem very fair. You either find out that your decision to go with a high Ability Score was useless, or having training in the Skill is useless. What other problems are you seeing in that "can of worms"...?;) I was thinking of this as a good fix (I already posted this at WotC): [LIST] [*]Any Skill in which you have a bonus is considered "Trained". A Trained Skill provides an initial bonus of +5 (rather than +3) [*]When making Skill Checks, you add your bonus from your skill with the modifier from the appropriate attribute (determined by your DM), and add to a D20 roll. Exception: ignore [I]negative[/I] Ability Modifiers if making a check with a "Trained" Skill. (...in other words, only add positive Ability Modifiers when making a Check with a "Trained" Skill.) [/LIST]This has the advantage of basically keeping the system as is (mechanically), but addressing the problem of a high ability score character being better at a Skill Check than a "Trained" character. Someone Trained in a skill will most always have a better chance at a check than someone with a high natural Ability score, and at worst have the same chance as someone with a maxed out Ability score. But, it still maintains differentiation among characters of the same class. For example: The Rogue with a Wisdom of 8...-1 modifier...would ignore the -1 and just have the +5 bonus for Training in the skill, while the high Wisdom Cleric...lets say a 20 for a +5 bonus...would only tie the Rogue with Training. The Rogue would have an extra +1 over the 18 Wisdom Cleric. Also, the high Wisdom Rogue will be significantly better than the low Wisdom Rogue on the same check. (one can replace any other class, ability score, or skill in the example...it's about trained skills compared to natural talent...) This makes sense to me. The trained character is almost always going to be better, and at the worst will tie a character with a maxed out score (natural talent). What do you guys think? Also, I completely agree with Li Shenron, about not overusing the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. I think the designers need to be very careful about making sure there aren't too many things that provide this. I think it's important to make sure that advantage/disadvantage situations don't become common occurances, especially to the point where every roll could end up having either advantage or disadvantage. It would definitely diminish or eliminate the "coolness" factor of the mechanic. B-) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Playtest Update
Top