Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mengu" data-source="post: 5997890" data-attributes="member: 65726">One of few things I liked about the initial playtest was the use of ability checks instead of skill checks. It made much more sense to me, to apply conceptual bonuses to a task at hand, rather than having a separate skill for everything. For instance, Professional Lore should be something every character can do. I'd be perfectly happy allowing a noble to make an intelligence check and add his diplomacy, to see if he recognizes the house mark of another lord. A wizard might use history for the same information, a rogue might use streetwise, but ultimately, they are all making an intelligence check. This approach makes it so that whatever knowledge skills make sense for your background, you have them.What's more, it granulates each skill's use cases, and makes stats more relevant to the use case. For instance in 4e, if you asked for a thievery check to see what the rogue knew about the operation of a trap, he would use dexterity for that knowledge check. It's easy enough to suspend our disbelief, but making an intelligence check, and adding thievery bonus simply makes for a better mechanical representation of what is happening in the game world.I think they went the wrong direction with this, separating and listing skills the way they have.</blockquote>