Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 5998024" data-attributes="member: 7006">I also wouldn't mind something like this if two things happened...1)&nbsp; The player made a very good explanation as to how his time and background as a pirate would apply to this specific situation and why he should get a +3 bonus over just the standard STR check to climb the rock face.&nbsp; Make the player justify having experience in something relatable so that he's actually taking agency to what and who his character is.&nbsp; And2)&nbsp; The DM can then decide &quot;Okay, yeah, that makes sense.&nbsp; You get a +3 on this check.&quot;But right now... the system instead would give us an &quot;Athletics&quot; skill... which would include not only climbing, but also jumping, swimming, and sprint running-- and it would apply in EVERY situation.And I don't know about you... but I know that if my PCs were chasing someone through the snow... I wouldn't want to give the Pirate PC a +3 to run the guy down just because he had &quot;Athletics&quot;.&nbsp; A regular STR check?&nbsp; Absolutely!&nbsp; That's why we're using ability scores.&nbsp; But a bonus +3 to running through snow just because it was the only way to represent the Pirate being really good at climbing rigging and being able to swim?&nbsp; No thanks. True enough.&nbsp; But my response was to Chris_Nightwing, who made the case that the PCs would just start making up various reasons why a character's Background could apply to almost any situation-- basically overrunning the DM's ability to say &quot;Sorry, doesn't apply&quot;.&nbsp; Basically I'm saying the DM is allowed to use a little common sense to know that if a Bounty Hunter was focused in one kingdom and he and the party are in another... that the BH's &quot;Streetwise&quot; might not apply to ever single situation within the city.&nbsp; The DM has the ability to make a call and say that it doesn't work in this case.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 5998024, member: 7006"] I also wouldn't mind something like this if two things happened... 1) The player made a very good explanation as to how his time and background as a pirate would apply to [I]this specific situation[/I] and why he should get a +3 bonus over just the standard STR check to climb the rock face. Make the player justify having experience in something relatable so that he's actually taking agency to what and who his character is. And 2) The DM can then decide "Okay, yeah, that makes sense. You get a +3 on this check." But right now... the system instead would give us an "Athletics" skill... which would include not only climbing, but also jumping, swimming, and sprint running-- and it would apply in EVERY situation. And I don't know about you... but I know that if my PCs were chasing someone through the snow... I wouldn't want to give the Pirate PC a +3 to run the guy down just because he had "Athletics". A regular STR check? Absolutely! That's why we're using ability scores. But a bonus +3 to running through snow just because it was the only way to represent the Pirate being really good at climbing rigging and being able to swim? No thanks. True enough. But my response was to Chris_Nightwing, who made the case that the PCs would just start making up various reasons why a character's Background could apply to almost any situation-- basically overrunning the DM's ability to say "Sorry, doesn't apply". Basically I'm saying the DM is allowed to use a little common sense to know that if a Bounty Hunter was focused in one kingdom and he and the party are in another... that the BH's "Streetwise" might not apply to ever single situation within the city. The DM has the ability to make a call and say that it doesn't work in this case. [/QUOTE]

Verification