Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="P1NBACK" data-source="post: 5896428" data-attributes="member: 83768">I guess my opinion with the "just use your highest stat and describe how you do" is twofold: 1) Cool. We have a mechanic that leads from the fiction. It's requiring you to describe what you do so we know what to roll. I love it. A nice contrast from 4E's lead from the mechanic resolution which can be jarring. However...2) Is this just for social? What about other aspects of the game? "Oh, I'm hiking through the wilderness and trying to remain jovial by singing songs and whatnot! That's Charisma for our endurance check right?" Or, "I'm reflecting on that rare tome, Guide to All Things Mechanical, I was reading the other day. So, I'm trying to pick the lock. That's Intelligence right?" Or, "I'm going to smash this room to bits looking for the clue; breaking tables apart, flipping beds, cracking the walls open with my hammer... That's a Strength roll to find the clue right?" I mean, it seems like you can sort of justify anything. It doesn't feel right. It might be cool in actual play though. I just think there is potential there for things to get muddied up. And, if we're doing all actions in the game like this, why not extend to combat? "I'm being super watchful of his defensive movements. Wisdom to attack?" Or, "I'm using geometry to line up the perfect angle for firing this bow... Intelligence to attack?" At that point, we're just sort of <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />ting. I think there's a better approach for this. Why not base interaction off of Charisma, but give each class some sort of edge? Fighters are good at speaking with soldierly types. Thieves are good at backalley whispers and black market trades. Clerics are good with society and priestly. Wizards are good with the studious types and sages. Trying to make contact with the border fort? Send in the fighter. Want to vie for help from the town council? The Cleric. Want to learn more from the secretive Order of the Mage? Wizard. Want to find some poison or get the lowdown on a shady individual? Send the Thief in. And, that can all be based on Charisma, with simple mechanics for different situations. And, the Fighter with the higher Charisma still does better than the Fighter with the lower Charisma.</blockquote>

Verification