Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Retreater" data-source="post: 9259506" data-attributes="member: 42040">We talked about healers/medics/etc. Healing is usually based off a mental stat (Wisdom, Wits, Intelligence, etc.) which is not useful in any combat situation. If I take my point allotment from Healing and put it in an Attack ability, that makes me less good at what the party needs me to be. Or if I invest in Social skills instead of being able to cure poison. You get something like 2 trained skills in D&amp;D (for example). You can't diversify your character enough to be good at more than one thing.But you're never actually decent at it. If you take a decent Charisma score, then you've sacrificed HP by tanking Con or your ability to hit and damage by tanking Str or Dex. And is it being a bad sport to tank your scores that are important to your role to be able to engage with social situations? Shouldn't the bard just be doing that? I've never played Cortex, and I don't think I've had a decent/proper game of Fate or DCC - so I can't judge any of them fairly. One game I remember that handled this somewhat decently was 13th Age. It doesn't have skills at all. You have a background independent of your class. For example, you could say &quot;sailor.&quot; You put ranks into &quot;sailor&quot; and anytime you have to roll a skill check, you add those ranks if they're relevant. You could make the case of adding ranks for boating, tying knots, but also gathering information on the docks, knowing how to supply for a long journey, carpentry, etc.Pretty much any major game on the market. D&amp;D, Pathfinder, Traveler, Cthulhu, etc.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Retreater, post: 9259506, member: 42040"] We talked about healers/medics/etc. Healing is usually based off a mental stat (Wisdom, Wits, Intelligence, etc.) which is not useful in any combat situation. If I take my point allotment from Healing and put it in an Attack ability, that makes me less good at what the party needs me to be. Or if I invest in Social skills instead of being able to cure poison. You get something like 2 trained skills in D&D (for example). You can't diversify your character enough to be good at more than one thing. But you're never actually decent at it. If you take a decent Charisma score, then you've sacrificed HP by tanking Con or your ability to hit and damage by tanking Str or Dex. And is it being a bad sport to tank your scores that are important to your role to be able to engage with social situations? Shouldn't the bard just be doing that? I've never played Cortex, and I don't think I've had a decent/proper game of Fate or DCC - so I can't judge any of them fairly. One game I remember that handled this somewhat decently was 13th Age. It doesn't have skills at all. You have a background independent of your class. For example, you could say "sailor." You put ranks into "sailor" and anytime you have to roll a skill check, you add those ranks if they're relevant. You could make the case of adding ranks for boating, tying knots, but also gathering information on the docks, knowing how to supply for a long journey, carpentry, etc. Pretty much any major game on the market. D&D, Pathfinder, Traveler, Cthulhu, etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification