Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7870790" data-attributes="member: 6987520">This has probably been brought up before, but in case it hasn't I wanted to share it with others (or if they missed it, as I might have).In 5E, ability scores are thought to represent some training or skill, as well as natural talent, in the skills you can take proficiency in. After all, if you have a STR 16, you get to add +3 to any Stregth check, including attempts at Athletics, for example. You don't have to have proficiency, as it instead applies a bonus to the ability score to represent additional training, etc.Now, this used to bother me. Being accustomed to earlier editions, I reconciled ability score bonuses as natural talent. You were better at Athletics, for example, because you were stronger (faster, etc.).At this point, I've realized 5E does it the other way around. You are stronger (faster, etc.) because you have done things like Athletics and other activities that made you strong. You are Intelligent because you have exercised your mind in pursuing things such as Arcana or History or any other thing you can think of.Now, some part of your ability scores are still natural talent, of course, since people tend to gravitate towards whatever natural inclinations they have. But it is interesting to me that this way of doing things is actually more representative of reality and how things work IRL.Although it is only a matter of semantics, but with this way of thinking I do wish they had used a term such as "skilled" or "trained" instead of just "proficient" for skills you take proficiency in since this represents additional practice, etc.Anyway, just something to share. Thanks for reading.</blockquote>

Verification