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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5997862" data-attributes="member: 54710">I agree in the general dissatisfaction with the skill list.  I wouldn't go as far as essentially replacing skills with general background abilities, but I think each background should provide a bonus when ability checks are used in the right social context.  For all the reasons suggested in the OP, the knight should get a bonus to using diplomacy in the military context, while the noble should get a similar bonus in court.I am also disappointed in the move from "skills give a bonus to whichever ability is appropriate to this check" to "skills are tied to a specific ability."  I always liked the idea that the correct Lore could provide a bonus to Int for research, a bonus to Wis for spotting things in that context or a bonus to Cha for saying the right thing to the right person.Separately, the designers really need to do something about the many overlapping Lore skills.  Heraldric Lore is something of a joke.  I'm sure there are some campaigns out there where this is a useful skill (beyond it's role as a weaker version of Societal Lore), but I'm not familiar with any.  But more generally, many of the Lore skills overlap quite a bit.  Personally, I would expect Forbidden Lore and Planar Lore to cover most of the same material, just as I would expect most of Undead Lore to be covered by Religious Lore.  I think it's perfectly acceptable to have different flavors of Lore, but there needs to be a little guidance about how to handle this.  (For example, the priest and the undead hunter could both know a lot about the undead, but come at it from different angles.)  I am particularly worried about how players of Sage characters handle this.  Taking several closely related lores would seem to significantly reduce the effectiveness of a character's skills if they mostly overlap.-KS</blockquote>

Verification