Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="abirdcall" data-source="post: 6737184" data-attributes="member: 6748898">So you would be completely fine with 5e if athletics, stealth, & perception remained as they were but every other skill was split into 3 different skills? And if someone had trouble reflecting their character in the game then the fault is automatically with their concept? (Though having tons of skills as a concept does completely work. A Half-Elf Lore Bard has 10 skills).It is absolutely possible to have skills that are bad for the game. Whether that is the case is up for discussion. Saying that the system can't be wrong is ridiculous.The problem in your example is that if I want a character who is great at handling animals, I might as well just not take the skill because it isn't going to come up much anyway and I should focus on more useful skills like athletics, stealth, & survival. In that case I don't see the problem with just letting the character have it as part of survival.I fail to see the point to Animal Handling, Medicine, & Performance. I can see the argument for keeping 4 distinct lore skills. That is the one I was on the fence about and still am. I like Nature as science.The flip side to all of this is that you don't want too few skills. You do want different characters to have different skills. The idea of giving free tool proficiencies with some skills is interesting, I think I lean away from that just to maintain that variety. If I keep medicine as its own skill I might give those proficiencies for free though.And yeah the Eldritch Knight thing is tough for me. I think they should have it as part of the subclass feature. I like the limitation on other characters. It just seems like something an EK should be able to do. I suppose with all the extra feats fighters get it isn't a big deal and they can get it at 4 easily enough.</blockquote>

Verification