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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kerleth" data-source="post: 5997957" data-attributes="member: 84383">I want a compromise between the two extremes. I want ability checks to be the norm, but a clean, paragraph long description for each skill of the most likely situations in which that skill's bonus might apply. As far as a pirate being better at climbing a rock wall cause he's used to hanging out in the rigging, I LIKE THAT! There, I said it. It implies that a character can take general lessons he's learned in one context, like lessons about balance, whether your grip feels secure, etc., etc., and apply them in another context. This makes for more interesting roleplaying and less specialized characters. It's also something not at all unrepresented in fantasy novels and short stories. If a character is in a situation that the DM rules he is completely unfamiliar with, then give him disadvantage on the roll (which is approximately a -3). This should apply whether or not he is trained in that particular skill. That way the knight can use his familiarity with horses, the nobles hunting dogs, the bs he swapped with the princes falconeer as he was knight erranting in the kingdom over, the way soldiers act when they go fight or flight, etc., to balance out his unfamiliarity with bears, which didn't naturally occur in his homeland. Also, Defcon 1. I understand your standpoint, but respectfully disagree. Some groups don't want to have a fully fleshed out backstory, they just wanna play and fill in the holes as they go. I'm hoping DDN will have a core system that can be used for either preference. Crazy Jerome, that may just be the best idea I've heard yet.</blockquote>

Verification