Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6084065" data-attributes="member: 92511">Splintering off from the &quot;Should Fighters/Barbarians get bonus skills&quot; thread/poll/discussion...Let's take a [developmmental] step back. Go to square one...The developers seem to be on this kick where, in order to respond to comments and feedback they just &quot;give the classes MORE stuff to make 'em happy!&quot; There's this &quot;if a little is good, more must be better&quot; pattern happening...at least as far as I see.Combat Expertise dice for Fighters! &quot;WOOHOO!&quot; say most. Well then, Expertise Dice for EV'RAYBODY! That'd be great right? Right?? Bonus skills for Rogues! &quot;WOOHOO!&quot;, say most. Well then, bonus skills for EV'RAYBODY! There. That's bettuh.Backgrounds are good? More backgrounds...More options...MORE MORE MORE!!! No imagination necessary, we're givin' it ALL to ya!So, I'm kinda wondering...where's the line to be drawn...or where's a dotted &quot;suggested guideline&quot; line be drawn?For a the Basic, Standard and Advanced, as the terms currently exist, style games in 5e, what [if any] skills should a class receive?It's kinda a loaded question as certain classes simply NEED skills in order to justify their existence. The Rogue, obviously, immediately comes to mind. But what's a Ranger if they don't have &quot;tracking&quot; built in? Does a Mage need &quot;Arcane Lore&quot; for the class archetype to exist? No. It doesn't. But it does make sense and, imo, add flavor. So, even for the &quot;simpler&quot; styles of game, I see a need for &quot;skills&quot; [which are differentiated as &quot;Class Features&quot;] to be built in.Where's the line?As many have said, there would be &quot;No skills&quot; used in a &quot;Basic&quot; game. That's fine and I can get behind that. I'm a sucker for a simple pick-up game. But does that mean there is no Basic Ranger? or Bard? or Monk? Developing...no, &quot;developing&quot; is even too vaunted/complicated a word for what it would be...how 'bout, &quot;presenting&quot; a &quot;Fighter class&quot; that you give/bake in &quot;Tracking&quot; and, perhaps, &quot;Survival&quot; is too difficult for a &quot;Basic&quot; game?There doesn't have to be a skill list or player options. But some skill (no more than 2, I would say) are baked into the class description as features.AND, if 1 class in a Basic style game gets them, does that mean every class needs them? I don't think so, but then people start whi- er...complai- nooo...&quot;getting concerrrrrned&quot; about class &quot;balance.&quot;How do you even have a traditional &quot;D&amp;D Rogue/Thief&quot; class without using skills? For a &quot;Standard&quot; game...say, you get your 1 or 2 as the basic game and then 4 more? Either built in or selected by the player, I mean. Or 2 more built in and 2 more selected? The option for &quot;X&quot; number of skills for your PC. Is 4 enough? Too many? 5? Different numbers dependent on class? Should they get more as they increase level or is that too &quot;Advanced&quot;? A maximum to shoot for? I say make it a fixed number for the standard game.For an &quot;Advanced&quot; game, I would say you get a full suite of &quot;class features&quot;, however many that is depends on class, and then a set number that is dependent on your class and increases with level: maybe Clerics get 2 every X levels, but Rogues get 4 every Y. One need never look at a skill list in a Basic game, though a DM could easily just take the &quot;Advanced game skill advancement&quot; and apply it to their Basic game if desired...or tell their players in a Basic game, after perusing the Standard system, pick 2 more skills at 5th level. One could play an advanced game without the skill system, just use the assigned the class skills. etc...As with all of these design preference things, there is no &quot;right&quot; answer, of course...but curious to see what people think/prefer?I dunno...I've had a bit of coffee so far and am kinda rambling, but I hope the thread question is clear...What/How many skills do you think each class should receive/be permitted or, flat out &quot;I personally prefer/would like to see...&quot; for &quot;Basic/Standard/Advanced&quot; game play?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6084065, member: 92511"] Splintering off from the "Should Fighters/Barbarians get bonus skills" thread/poll/discussion... Let's take a [developmmental] step back. Go to square one... The developers seem to be on this kick where, in order to respond to comments and feedback they just "give the classes MORE stuff to make 'em happy!" There's this "if a little is good, more must be better" pattern happening...at least as far as I see. Combat Expertise dice for Fighters! "WOOHOO!" say most. Well then, Expertise Dice for EV'RAYBODY! That'd be great right? Right?? Bonus skills for Rogues! "WOOHOO!", say most. Well then, bonus skills for EV'RAYBODY! There. That's bettuh. Backgrounds are good? More backgrounds...More options...MORE MORE MORE!!! No imagination necessary, we're givin' it ALL to ya! So, I'm kinda wondering...where's the line to be drawn...or where's a dotted "suggested guideline" line be drawn? For a the Basic, Standard and Advanced, as the terms currently exist, style games in 5e, what [if any] skills should a class receive? It's kinda a loaded question as certain classes simply NEED skills in order to justify their existence. The Rogue, obviously, immediately comes to mind. But what's a Ranger if they don't have "tracking" built in? Does a Mage [I]need[/I] "Arcane Lore" for the class archetype to exist? No. It doesn't. But it does make sense and, imo, add flavor. So, even for the "simpler" styles of game, I see a need for "skills" [which are differentiated as "Class Features"] to be built in. Where's the line? As many have said, there would be "No skills" used in a "Basic" game. That's fine and I can get behind that. I'm a sucker for a simple pick-up game. But does that mean there[I] is [/I]no Basic Ranger? or Bard? or Monk? Developing...no, "developing" is even too vaunted/complicated a word for what it would be...how 'bout, "presenting" a "Fighter class" that you give/bake in "Tracking" and, perhaps, "Survival" is too difficult for a "Basic" game? There doesn't have to be a skill list or player options. But some skill (no more than 2, I would say) are baked into the class description as features. AND, if 1 class in a Basic style game gets them, does that mean every class needs them? I don't think so, but then people start whi- er...complai- nooo..."getting concerrrrrned" about class "balance." How do you even have a traditional "D&D Rogue/Thief" class without using skills? For a "Standard" game...say, you get your 1 or 2 as the basic game and then 4 more? Either built in or selected by the player, I mean. Or 2 more built in and 2 more selected? The option for "X" number of skills for your PC. Is 4 enough? Too many? 5? Different numbers dependent on class? Should they get more as they increase level or is that too "Advanced"? A maximum to shoot for? I say make it a fixed number for the standard game. For an "Advanced" game, I would say you get a full suite of "class features", however many that is depends on class, and then a set number that is dependent on your class and increases with level: maybe Clerics get 2 every X levels, but Rogues get 4 every Y. One need never look at a skill list in a Basic game, though a DM could easily just take the "Advanced game skill advancement" and apply it to their Basic game if desired...or tell their players in a Basic game, after perusing the Standard system, pick 2 more skills at 5th level. One could play an advanced game without the skill system, just use the assigned the class skills. etc... As with all of these design preference things, there is no "right" answer, of course...but curious to see what people think/prefer? I dunno...I've had a bit of coffee so far and am kinda rambling, but I hope the thread question is clear... What/How many skills do you think each class should receive/be permitted or, flat out "I personally prefer/would like to see..." for "Basic/Standard/Advanced" game play? [/QUOTE]

Verification