Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ezo" data-source="post: 9288401" data-attributes="member: 7037866">Exactly. And if he's paying attention and trying to learn how to sneak effectively, in mechanics he should (somehow) gain proficiency in Stealth. More to such a point, things like using downtime activities to &quot;gain training&quot; in a skill should be part of the game--but all they give us is learning a language or tool (in general).Again, exactly.For example, I've played golf on and off for over four decades. Frankly, I'm really not much better at it now than I was back in my teens. I'm probably better in some ways, worse in others. My point is I could never claim I've practiced or trained in golf in any consistant fashion--- I haven't invested into it. So, I don't expect to really be any better.A paladin in heavy armor should rarely be trying to stealth (without serious help!). He should be like me with golf. Maybe slightly better, but probably not even to the point of getting a +1 bonus.&nbsp; <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging&nbsp; &nbsp; :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> This is why, for example, if a group of PCs is trying to stealth, I prefer the group check mechanics. If half of them succeed, the party does. This is how I assume the skilled PCs are giving pointers and helping the unskilled.Oh, I see the argument for it as well. IMO and IME, usually the bonus is so minor it really has little impact (so why bother?) or is big enough that it makes too much of a difference, and makes high level PCs without proficiency just as good (or better) than a low-level PC with proficiency. For me, anyway, either is not an acceptable option.Granted, I don't care if someone else does implement some sort of improvement system, it just isn't my thing in general.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ezo, post: 9288401, member: 7037866"] Exactly. And [I]if[/I] he's paying attention and trying to learn how to sneak effectively, in mechanics he should (somehow) gain proficiency in Stealth. More to such a point, things like using downtime activities to "gain training" in a skill should be part of the game--but all they give us is learning a language or tool (in general). Again, exactly. For example, I've played golf on and off for over four decades. Frankly, I'm really not much better at it now than I was back in my teens. I'm probably better in some ways, worse in others. My point is I could never claim I've practiced or trained in golf in any consistant fashion--- I haven't invested into it. So, I don't expect to really be any better. A paladin in heavy armor should rarely be trying to stealth (without serious help!). He should be like me with golf. Maybe slightly better, but probably not even to the point of getting a +1 bonus. 🤷‍♂️ This is why, for example, if a [I]group of PCs[/I] is trying to stealth, I prefer the group check mechanics. If half of them succeed, the party does. This is how I assume the skilled PCs are giving pointers and helping the unskilled. Oh, I see the argument for it as well. IMO and IME, usually the bonus is so minor it really has little impact (so why bother?) or is big enough that it makes too much of a difference, and makes high level PCs without proficiency just as good (or better) than a low-level PC with proficiency. For me, anyway, either is not an acceptable option. Granted, I don't care if someone else does implement some sort of improvement system, it just isn't my thing in general. [/QUOTE]

Verification