Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 8375337" data-attributes="member: 23484">It's not entirely clear what problem you are trying to fix. Simple isn't bad in itself. Using disadvantage might solve some things (knowledge skills, perhaps), but doesn't work for stealth, where you would then be effectively cancelling out the penalty from heavy armour. There are only a few problems I see with the skill system:1. when dump-stats work against the intuitive story: e.g. an untrained high-CHA halfling being more intimidating than a typical trained half-orc. This happens a lot.2. when new things work against a key niche of the class (my thoughts on feats that give expertise are different than yours; also, I want to enjoy playing rogues more). 3. when players aren't incentivized to invest in suboptimal skills. The benefit from being proficient in Athletics or Acrobatics should be meaningful, so that the choice of skills becomes a meaningful decision that shapes the way the character is played. (In some ways this is another way of framing point 1.) That's where I chafe, and making it harder for the untrained doesn't by itself solve any of them. I do have ideas on how these could be addressed to satisfy me, but I know that they won't appeal to all. E.g. (a) a bigger starting proficiency bonus, for example (or a jump to +3 at level 3) would help. If all skills gave +4 instead of +2 to start (and DCs all went up by 2), you might have a solution to the problem you identify.(b) all classes get 2 skills, only (including Rangers and rogues) BUT Rogues get a second background as a class feature.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kobold Stew, post: 8375337, member: 23484"] It's not entirely clear what problem you are trying to fix. Simple isn't bad in itself. Using disadvantage might solve some things (knowledge skills, perhaps), but doesn't work for stealth, where you would then be effectively cancelling out the penalty from heavy armour. There are only a few problems I see with the skill system: 1. when dump-stats work against the intuitive story: e.g. an untrained high-CHA halfling being more intimidating than a typical trained half-orc. This happens a lot. 2. when new things work against a key niche of the class (my thoughts on feats that give expertise are different than yours; also, I want to enjoy playing rogues more). 3. when players aren't incentivized to invest in suboptimal skills. The benefit from being proficient in Athletics or Acrobatics should be meaningful, so that the choice of skills becomes a meaningful decision that shapes the way the character is played. (In some ways this is another way of framing point 1.) That's where I chafe, and making it harder for the untrained doesn't by itself solve any of them. I do have ideas on how these could be addressed to satisfy me, but I know that they won't appeal to all. E.g. (a) a bigger starting proficiency bonus, for example (or a jump to +3 at level 3) would help. If all skills gave +4 instead of +2 to start (and DCs all went up by 2), you might have a solution to the problem you identify. (b) all classes get 2 skills, only (including Rangers and rogues) BUT Rogues get a second background as a class feature. [/QUOTE]

Verification