Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 6024690" data-attributes="member: 54843">So first off,best typo ever. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I kind of think the basic skill synergy thing should be built into the default rules: if you can think of a viable way to relate a second skill to a check, you can use both skills to gain advantage. The catch is that in combat, each roll counts as an action, so it'll take two rounds to get that advantage - and maybe if you fail the secondary roll, you get DISadvantage. (&quot;My word, this lock looks exactly like the work of the Duskminers of Azur! All I have to do is twist counterclAGGGH POISON NEEDLE&quot;).Now, the skill mastery bonus sounds cool but would probably need to be balanced more carefully. A 5th-level rogue with +5d6 to skill checks would be fairly ridiculous. That would mean a result of 9+mod to 53+mod on a trained skill. It would also probably result in a lot of stretching attempts to gain advantage on skill checks, which gets into annoying &quot;mother may I&quot; territory for some players. (&quot;Crap, I need advantage on this lockpicking check... uh, my rogue uses Survival to see if this lock reminds him of natural rock formations? Diplomacy to see if he's every been able to wheedle a locksmith into explaining them?&quot;) While no skill system can completely avoid these edge cases, this system might go too far in almost requiring them.EDIT: It's also worth noting that the current Skill Mastery has the benefit of not changing your MAX die roll, so it doesn't screw up the expected skill checks for the bounded accuracy system. That is, a trained thief rogue might ALWAYS unlock a DC15 lock, but non-rogues and/or non-thieves also have a shot. A DC 20 lock is an equally difficult challenge for a thief rogue and a thief non-rogue, and DC30 is all but impossible. Under your system, as I mentioned, a skill-focused rogue could hit very high DCs, which would have serious consequences for setting DCs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ZombieRoboNinja, post: 6024690, member: 54843"] So first off, best typo ever. ;) I kind of think the basic skill synergy thing should be built into the default rules: if you can think of a viable way to relate a second skill to a check, you can use both skills to gain advantage. The catch is that in combat, each roll counts as an action, so it'll take two rounds to get that advantage - and maybe if you fail the secondary roll, you get DISadvantage. ("My word, this lock looks exactly like the work of the Duskminers of Azur! All I have to do is twist counterclAGGGH POISON NEEDLE"). Now, the skill mastery bonus sounds cool but would probably need to be balanced more carefully. A 5th-level rogue with +5d6 to skill checks would be fairly ridiculous. That would mean a result of 9+mod to 53+mod on a trained skill. It would also probably result in a lot of stretching attempts to gain advantage on skill checks, which gets into annoying "mother may I" territory for some players. ("Crap, I need advantage on this lockpicking check... uh, my rogue uses Survival to see if this lock reminds him of natural rock formations? Diplomacy to see if he's every been able to wheedle a locksmith into explaining them?") While no skill system can completely avoid these edge cases, this system might go too far in almost requiring them. EDIT: It's also worth noting that the current Skill Mastery has the benefit of not changing your MAX die roll, so it doesn't screw up the expected skill checks for the bounded accuracy system. That is, a trained thief rogue might ALWAYS unlock a DC15 lock, but non-rogues and/or non-thieves also have a shot. A DC 20 lock is an equally difficult challenge for a thief rogue and a thief non-rogue, and DC30 is all but impossible. Under your system, as I mentioned, a skill-focused rogue could hit very high DCs, which would have serious consequences for setting DCs. [/QUOTE]

Verification