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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Transformer" data-source="post: 5997844" data-attributes="member: 70008">Surprisingly, I'm actually with you here. If Wizards is going to do the "ability checks are what the game is built on them, but you occasionally get a +3 bonus to them due to your character's backround," I'd rather they did it all the way. As the playtest packet stands now, they're 90% of the way back to 3rd edition's skill system. I read a playtest report in which the GM was terribly confused about how the skill system worked, and didn't understand what modifier a person who was not trained in a skill should get when asked for a skill check. The presence of the "skill system" was so strong in the playtest packed that the GM didn't get that there really isn't supposed to be a skill check system anymore; you don't ask for a skill check, you ask for an ability check.Now, I know there are gonna be all kinds of problems with your way of doing things, especially problems related to (a) putting too much weight on the DM's shoulders and (b) the DM vs. player empowerment debate. I'll speak to each one in turn.(a) We're basically talking about giving backgrounds granular, inconsistent skills rather than standardized, unified, generic skills. That puts more weight on the DM to make calls and set DCs. If there's a diplomacy skill, there will be a table somewhere saying what the DCs are for various tasks. If there's ten different diplomacy "skills" matching ten distinct backgrounds, then the DM has to come up with the DC himself, just based on generic advice about what DC a "hard" task is and what DC a "very hard" task is.I think the solution to this problem is just to provide as much guidance as possible, but make sure you don't suggest a unified "skill system." So have a section somewhere with suggested climb DCs, suggested social interaction/persuasion DCs, suggested spot DCs, but don't suggest that Spot is a Skill.Likewise, if they go this route, then the backrounds themselves need to have some pretty clear and specific guidelines to help players and DMs decide what does and does not get the bonus. Concise, specific descriptions are helpful: "pirate gets a +3 bonus on ability checks involving knowledge of coastline and island geography and culture, balancing on moving surfaces, climbing involving ropes, any kind of negotiation with piratey-types, and all manner of sailory tasks. Such specificity would also be necessary to solve the balance issue: spell out what the brewer and the bounty hunter are good for, and they won't be quite so lopsided.(b) The player vs. DM empowerment issue is a thorny one. I know the player empowerment advocates will not like a "skill system" which places so much emphasis on DM judgment calls. You know what you can do or attempt in a unified skill system. But in an ad hoc "skill system," what if, despite a well-written rulebook telling you what each background is good for, you and the DM aren't on the same page on what a pirate is good at? What if he gives more bonuses to the person with "soldier" or "sage" in his background than the person with "brewer" as his background, just because he thinks that's how it would go?Anyway, I don't have a solution to this issue, so eh.Also, I like the Traits they have now. Those should stay.</blockquote>

Verification