Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="abirdcall" data-source="post: 6737111" data-attributes="member: 6748898">They are absolutely related. They are both science. It is really a question of narrow vs broad. Most skills in 5e are broad. Knowing about something that happened 3000 years ago in one region doesn't mean you would have any knowledge about something that happened 200 years ago in a completely different region either.It would be very easy to split the lore skills into 20 or more different skills. All that would accomplish is to further dissuade people from playing those characters.Knowing how to wield a sword doesn't mean you know how to wield a polearm either. The game simplifies it for the sake of allowing character concepts. To me these are cases where the narrow range of the abilities don't match the rest of the system which paints in broad strokes.I agree. There is a balance to be struck. If Athletics were 3 skills in 5e would that help or hinder martial characters?Knowing how to climb doesn't mean you know how to swim after all.My major one with the feat is Eldritch Knight. I don't like that they need to spend a feat to use a shield. I also just don't allow -5/+10 abilities so that may change my thinking with GWM.</blockquote>