Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Unsung" data-source="post: 6480300" data-attributes="member: 6781406">I think there's both less and more equivalency between proficiencies than before. You can exchange languages for tool proficiencies, but I think there's a certain acknowledgement that how useful (and thus how valuable) any of these are going to be has more to do with your specific game than the system itself. Because a lot of rules are less numerical than before, their value is more contextual. In other words, it's not how many skill ranks you have, but what you do with them.Likewise, I don't really miss the granularity of 3.5's skills. Some combinations feel more natural (who ever took Hide but not Move Silently?) than others (a long distance runner is not necessarily a great climber, a sprinter can't necessarily swim), I feel like drawing those distinctions out of a smaller array of options is the more elegant solution, rather than assembling them ad-hoc from a longer list. You have a basic proficiency, and then you specialize: an inexperienced swimmer who is physically fit can keep their head above water longer than a homebody and layabout, a creature is proficient in Perception but then narrows down what that means with traits like Daylight Sensitivity or Scent.Of course, this is coming from someone who likes the FATE system and the optional rules for background proficiencies, so it's a matter of taste.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Unsung, post: 6480300, member: 6781406"] I think there's both less and more equivalency between proficiencies than before. You can exchange languages for tool proficiencies, but I think there's a certain acknowledgement that how useful (and thus how valuable) any of these are going to be has more to do with your specific game than the system itself. Because a lot of rules are less numerical than before, their value is more contextual. In other words, it's not how many skill ranks you have, but what you do with them. Likewise, I don't really miss the granularity of 3.5's skills. Some combinations feel more natural (who ever took Hide but not Move Silently?) than others (a long distance runner is not necessarily a great climber, a sprinter can't necessarily swim), I feel like drawing those distinctions out of a smaller array of options is the more elegant solution, rather than assembling them ad-hoc from a longer list. You have a basic proficiency, and then you specialize: an inexperienced swimmer who is physically fit can keep their head above water longer than a homebody and layabout, a creature is proficient in Perception but then narrows down what that means with traits like Daylight Sensitivity or Scent. Of course, this is coming from someone who likes the FATE system and the optional rules for background proficiencies, so it's a matter of taste. [/QUOTE]

Verification