Search results

This is excellent. I've been thinking along the same lines myself. I believe intelligence and charisma and wisdom are all bad to have as character scores the way they are because they restrict roleplaying. What if I want to play a stupid wizard?

Bill: I'm kinda curious what you think about systems like Blades in the Dark. They have a system where you only roll if there is a consequence for failure, otherwise you just accept that they succeed.

That's a great outline. The bolded part is the GM equivalent of a player not being able to think outside of his character sheet.

I brought up FKR because someone else in the thread referenced it earlier. It's an approach to GM-ing where the players have extremely little agency, the system is designed for the players not to know the rules, there being barely any rules in the first place, and for the GM to have the ultimate...

Pathfinder 1e. Bad decision from me, bad luck and bad tactics from another player. I was playing a rogue/vivisectionist with a really crappy will save, and another player was playing a strength focused magus. We were hit by a confusion effect and both failed the saves. The fight until this...

Ultimately it makes martial characters even more incompetent than they already are. Spells being a limited resource is irrelevant, because even limited supremacy beats unlimited incompetence. I am happy you are happy with what you are doing, but I am also very happy that I am not actually...

Yeah it might be just a misunderstanding. I'll elaborate. When a player interacts with the world he can do it through describing things he wants to do. The GM can then decide whether or not it works, and if it can even be attempted. Spells mostly bypass this procedure, so, for example, the...

I still think this really clashes with D&D, though. I mean, it's actively hostile to anything that isn't a spell. I hope for the sake of at least some sense of balance that you also don't permit spells to solve out-of-combat problems, else non-casters suck even worse than they do in vanilla 5e.

I see what you're getting at, but frankly I think combat has to be important given the focus it gets in the rulebook. There's a class called the Fighter, right? You wouldn't have a fighter as a class in a system that wasn't designed around combat? Combat has more pages in the rulebook than...

Many of your points are more reasonable than I expected when seeing your thread title. In fact, though I do not gm for D&D right now, I use a system without checks for many of the things you propose. There are no perception checks, or find-secret-door checks. It works pretty well and would...

Since combat is the main point of D&D, anything non-combat is the special case. This is pretty obvious given how absolutely underbaked everything in the system is except for combat. No thought has been spared on how skills should work. But I agree that everything should be redesigned such that...

It certainly makes the concept of intimidate itself something that is reliable and, well, something that you can act upon within the system, and it would function well even if you kept the original skill. You don't actually need to remove the skills even though you probably should (since they...

So first of all in response to the bolded part, yes you are entirely correct. This is caused by skills being *. If skills were less * there would be interesting options all around and no option would be clearly superior. My propose solution to fixing intimidation is to make it into a class...

Of course it doesn't say that, but someone is obviously interpreting it that way. This seems to indicate that there is some issue with the clarity of the rules because people are obviously reading them wrong or misunderstanding them. edit: I mean you must admit that you cannot counter that...

What I'm trying to get at is that the same amount of guidance might not be enough. For example a lot of people might have have preconceived ideas about how a particular skills should work and this influences their handling of the skill. Someone above mentioned the thing about intimidate being...

You assume that since they have the same amount of rules and descriptive text they are equally good. This is, obviously, not true. If the text is not the same text then the rules are not the same and as such they can be read and interpreted differently by different GMs.

It's a problem with the skill because the skill doesn't explain how it's actually supposed to work.

Having only seen the class name written down without knowing what the class was about I just assumed it was either related to ships, or some kind of artificer thing focused on jury-rigging stuff.

The argument essentially boils down to that there is no difference between an ability that enables you to do X, vs an ability that allows you to negotiate with the GM for the possible chance of being able to do X, because the GM can say no to both. Having the ability outright is a safer...

That's true in theory, but not in practice. Instead of using spells, I'll illustrate using the Echo Knight. The EK has an ability that lets them create a copy. They can move the copy. They can also swap position with the copy. All these abilities are actionable and entirely free from GM-fiat...