Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7069422" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think he says a lot of interesting things. I feel like a lot of it is kind of self evident to a lot of us (which Angry also realizes) but is not made explicit in the rules. For instance, if a skill check is allowed to be retried after failure, then don't bother with a roll, just allow the attempt to succeed. Unless there is a consequence for failure of some sort. I also like two other things he discusses: separating abilities and skills, and dividing passive and active uses of skills.For the separation of abilities and skills, Angry gives the example of the intelligent character using reason to persuade someone rather than their personal charisma. I like that example. So in this case, the player may use his Int bonus rather than Cha. This allows for different methods to achieve the same outcome and I think it adds a bit to the skill system, which I think is pretty basic (which I don't mind). This way of doing things will require a little more judgment on the part of the DM, but I think it's a pretty reasonable concept. We already do this at my table, for the most part. I allow different skills to be used for whatever task; i.e. Athletics or Acrobatics to climb, and so on. Splitting things along Ability and Skill lines is probably a more sensible and specific way of doing that. For the Passive versus Active skills...I really like the concept, but I feel like this adds a whole lot of calculation to the game. The idea is that each skill has a passive score...equal to 8 + Ability Mod + Proficiency Bonus. So, a 1st level character with a 16 Wis and Proficiency in Religion would have a passive score of 13. What this means is that for anything not requiring an action based on religion (for example, performing a religious ritual), the DM can create tiers of knowledge, and then the passive score determines what tier the character knows. For example, the character sees the holy symbol of some other deity, and the DM can set up knowledge tiers along the lines of: DC 10- this is the symbol of Bane, god of tyranny; DC 15- Bane is the patron of the Black Network; DC 17- this particular symbol is actually a specialized version indicating a high ranking member of the church of Bane. I hope I've explained it clearly. I quite like the idea. I just am not sure that it makes things any easier. But, I'm a big proponent of DM judgment...which I think can essentially accomplish everything he's trying for here. But for those who prefer things to be more codified...or for those DMs who maybe don't quite trust their judgment yet...I really like this. He then goes on about Reactions (not in the type of action that we know, but more in the Saving Throw variety) and I kind of like how things are described here, but I don't know if I agree with how he handles it. As [MENTION=53980]Fanaelialae[/MENTION] mentions above, not allowing a saving throw for Bob because he didn't take a reaction that moves him out of harm's way seems odd. Saving throws are a bit weird in that they work backwards, but I don't really have a huge problem with that given the reasons for that (of which Angry seems to be aware).So I think all in all he's tinkering with the core bits of the game in a way that was very much intended. Or at least expected. I like some of his ideas, even if I may never use them at my table because I don't feel the need to be so codified. I like running the game loose and abdicating on the fly. His methods would require a significant amount of additional effort, and I don't know if the payoff is quite enough to justify that. But, this seems to be something that e is going to continue to work on, so perhaps with more time and work, these ideas may become more worthwhile for me.</blockquote>

Verification