Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rhenny" data-source="post: 6817426" data-attributes="member: 18333">One thing I didn't like about granular skill systems was how it prompted players to look at their character sheets too often when deciding what their characters would do in any given situation.I like the idea of loose ability checks tied into the attributes.  I want to encourage players to just think organically through their characters without having to check if they "have" the skill.  To some extent, 5e does help with this.Eventually, I may even run 5e with a free form skill system where the player only needs to know his/her class and background.  Then, if an action that the player has the PC do seems to fit within the class or background, I'll add the proficiency.   Sure, this will be more lenient and may give players more opportunities to add proficiency to their skill rolls, but I figure that people usually play D&D to do cool stuff and be bad-ass.  I don't mind rewarding that at all.Basically, if it seems logical that the PC would have had some prior experience with the skill, add the proficiency.   (For rogues, I'd probably still use the expertise 2x checks for stealth and thieves' tools).Now that I think about it, it might be cool to give each class at least one skill expertise (perhaps even some choice).   Fighters - intimidation or athletics; Wizards - Arcana or History; Rangers - perception or survival; Barbarians - intimidation or survival; Clerics - Religion, Medicine or History; Druids - Nature, Handle Animal or Medicine...etc.I know in one of the playtest packages they toyed around with the idea of granting proficiency by class depending on key attribute (i.e. fighters get proficiency on Strength, etc.).  That seems to lump too much into the attributes though.  I'd rather decide on a case by case basis considering both class and background.</blockquote>

Verification