Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 9039321" data-attributes="member: 63508">Like I said in earlier posts, there isn't much to compare the 5e skill system against that is popular enough.5e like most editions of D&amp;D, benefits from the fan base not knowing about many other games or editions to compare to. So the only time when 5e's audience would see heavy criticism openly would be at the 4e-&gt;5e conversion.It's sort of how people complain about something for 5e and ask for a solution and it exists in the 5e DMG. The designers openly say this happens and are designing the DMG because of this.The &quot;nobody is complaining&quot; thing isn't true. People have complained so much that the designers are reordering the DMG so people can find what they are looking for. There are people making Youtube careers pointing out stuff in the DMG and posting personal houserules. Clarity:For example bending a bar, lifting a gate, breaking a door, or toppling a item is not an Ahletics check RAW. Those are &quot;other Strength checks&quot;. So a STR based fighter, the PC you'd think and traditionally would would be getting better at those things, does not add their profiecency modifier to a STR check to topple a statue. Nor can they take a skill and train themselves to do so. These are common actions PCs perform.So either add bend/break/lift/topple to Athletics as RAW or add a new skill that does it.Focus:Which gets down to the other aspect: focus on what players and DMs do and want.Going back to the clarity example, if the basic rules fighter is a basic STR fighter: That fighter needs to be able to do things with their STR outside of combat. The &quot;Fighter is good at combat so its should be poor at out of combat rolls&quot; is no a mentally of 5e tables. There is ony one strength skill and it doesn't even cover all STR checks.Expand Athletics? Add a skill? Remove skills and give Ability Score proficiency like you suggested? Choose one. But the current one doesn''t match the mentality of current 5e tables.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Minigiant, post: 9039321, member: 63508"] Like I said in earlier posts, there isn't much to compare the 5e skill system against that is popular enough. 5e like most editions of D&D, benefits from the fan base not knowing about many other games or editions to compare to. So the only time when 5e's audience would see heavy criticism openly would be at the 4e->5e conversion. It's sort of how people complain about something for 5e and ask for a solution and it exists in the 5e DMG. The designers openly say this happens and are designing the DMG because of this. The "nobody is complaining" thing isn't true. People have complained so much that the designers are reordering the DMG so people can find what they are looking for. There are people making Youtube careers pointing out stuff in the DMG and posting personal houserules. Clarity: For example bending a bar, lifting a gate, breaking a door, or toppling a item is not an Ahletics check RAW. Those are "other Strength checks". So a STR based fighter, the PC you'd think and traditionally would would be getting better at those things, does not add their profiecency modifier to a STR check to topple a statue. Nor can they take a skill and train themselves to do so. These are common actions PCs perform. So either add bend/break/lift/topple to Athletics as RAW or add a new skill that does it. Focus: Which gets down to the other aspect: focus on what players and DMs do and want. Going back to the clarity example, if the basic rules fighter is a basic STR fighter: That fighter needs to be able to do things with their STR outside of combat. The "Fighter is good at combat so its should be poor at out of combat rolls" is no a mentally of 5e tables. There is ony one strength skill and it doesn't even cover all STR checks. Expand Athletics? Add a skill? Remove skills and give Ability Score proficiency like you suggested? Choose one. But the current one doesn''t match the mentality of current 5e tables. [/QUOTE]

Verification