Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9232255" data-attributes="member: 93670">That's the wrong question, almost to the point of inviting problems by letter of the answer &amp; encouraging miscommunication. Take GURPS 4th edition as an example making a good discussion point, it apparently* has around 300 skills, that's probably too many &amp; iirc part of why it tends to be shortened to fit the world &amp; campaign style where a gurps game is being played. At a different end of the spectrum fate accelerated has only six skill equivalents called &quot;approaches&quot; which every character has in ways that play out somewhat uniquely after adding an infinite number of aspects &amp; stunts. 4e had only 17, but it avoided the chorus 5e creates with 18&nbsp; by having more limits on what skills a given PC could choose during chargen before adding things with an opportunity cost like feats/power selections/etc.depending on how you split knowledge skills and such 3.x did it with ten or fifteen extra skills and varying opportunity cost to expand your niche&nbsp; beyond skills thematically fitting your class into A &amp; S tier skills.The over-consolidation of skills in 5e extends well beyond just climbing &amp; swimming.&nbsp; Literally all three of the pillars (exploration/social/combat)&nbsp; along with pretty much any type of challenge that requires the use of skills is negatively impacted by the &quot;oh I'm proficient too&quot; chorus that 5e's skill system creates until you add gm fiat to exclude a proficient player from applying their proficiency after the chorus. That chorus shouldn't happen in a game of specialist classes working together to cover each other's weaknesses with their strengths because it results in gameplay where the players never need to seek out an expert or obtain components needed for working around gaps in the party's skillset before even adding the possibility of creative(or explicitly intended) alternatives granted by their respective classes.&nbsp; That remains true right up until you hit the smallest groups &amp; larger groups do not have an alternative variant the GM can simply point to without making a mess as (sub)classes sometimes gain proficiency in more or specific skills as they level &amp; MC.*someone seems to have counted<a href="https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=23331" target="_blank"> here</a>, I'm sure as heck not going to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 9232255, member: 93670"] That's the wrong question, almost to the point of inviting problems by letter of the answer & encouraging miscommunication. Take GURPS 4th edition as an example making a good discussion point, it apparently* has around 300 skills, that's probably too many & iirc part of why it tends to be shortened to fit the world & campaign style where a gurps game is being played. At a different end of the spectrum fate accelerated has only six skill equivalents called "approaches" which every character has in ways that play out somewhat uniquely after adding an infinite number of aspects & stunts. 4e had only 17, but it avoided the chorus 5e creates with 18 by having more limits on what skills a given PC could choose during chargen before adding things with an opportunity cost like feats/power selections/etc.depending on how you split knowledge skills and such 3.x did it with ten or fifteen extra skills and [U]varying[/U] opportunity cost to expand your niche beyond skills thematically fitting your class into A & S tier skills. The over-consolidation of skills in 5e extends well beyond just climbing & swimming. Literally all three of the pillars (exploration/social/combat) along with pretty much any type of challenge that requires the use of skills is negatively impacted by the "oh I'm proficient too" chorus that 5e's skill system creates until you add gm fiat to exclude a proficient player from applying their proficiency after the chorus. That chorus shouldn't happen in a game of specialist classes working together to cover each other's weaknesses with their strengths because it results in gameplay where the players never need to seek out an expert or obtain components needed for working around gaps in the party's skillset before even adding the possibility of creative(or explicitly intended) alternatives granted by their respective classes. That remains true right up until you hit the smallest groups & larger groups do not have an alternative variant the GM can simply point to without making a mess as (sub)classes sometimes gain proficiency in more or specific skills as they level & MC. *someone seems to have counted[URL='https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=23331'] here[/URL], I'm sure as heck not going to. [/QUOTE]

Verification