Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5898554" data-attributes="member: 54877">How about no false symmetry with the pillars and the names of the associated building block? Instead, make each building block do something consistent (mechanically), and let it work itself out, probably in a loosely symmetrical way?&nbsp;For example, limiting myself to the language in the article, let's say that &quot;feats&quot; are choices that give you new options for things you can do, like maneuvers or casting a spell at will. &quot;Skills&quot; let you do some things better--adding onto those ability checks. &quot;Traits&quot; are peripheral stuff you have that you may be able to use to your advantage, such as a noble title or follower.&nbsp;I bet in that framework, most feats will be combat related, most skills will be exploration related (though not as cleanly as feats are to combat), and traits will favor interaction. Then if your follower is a man at arms, and helps in combat, fine. You can still get a skill to boost a Cha check for diplomatic stuff. A combat feat that lets you jump well is handy for clearing a pit out of combat, too.&nbsp;That way, feats, skills, and traits provide a rough balance in the pillars, in that depending on how the class access each, it can only go so far. OTOH, you can, if you want, gravitate towards the stuff in each mechanical group that crosses over to another group.&nbsp; If your fighter takes some intimidation skills and traits that refect authority in a military setting, those may supplement the more direct combat feats.&nbsp; I'm not sure why that would be a problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5898554, member: 54877"] How about no false symmetry with the pillars and the names of the associated building block? Instead, make each building block do something consistent (mechanically), and let it work itself out, probably in a loosely symmetrical way? For example, limiting myself to the language in the article, let's say that "feats" are choices that give you new options for things you can do, like maneuvers or casting a spell at will. "Skills" let you do some things better--adding onto those ability checks. "Traits" are peripheral stuff you have that you may be able to use to your advantage, such as a noble title or follower. I bet in that framework, most feats will be combat related, most skills will be exploration related (though not as cleanly as feats are to combat), and traits will favor interaction. Then if your follower is a man at arms, and helps in combat, fine. You can still get a skill to boost a Cha check for diplomatic stuff. A combat feat that lets you jump well is handy for clearing a pit out of combat, too. That way, feats, skills, and traits provide a rough balance in the pillars, in that depending on how the class access each, it can only go so far. OTOH, you can, if you want, gravitate towards the stuff in each mechanical group that crosses over to another group. If your fighter takes some intimidation skills and traits that refect authority in a military setting, those may supplement the more direct combat feats. I'm not sure why that would be a problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification