Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7221335" data-attributes="member: 6795602">1.&nbsp; I don't understand how that critique applies to my proposal because I'm proposing to keep proficiency exactly the same.&nbsp; It's the stat bonus to skills that the &quot;free form&quot; component will replace. Then again my &quot;free form&quot; component isn't compleltely free form as it has a number of restriction on it.&nbsp; So why argue against a completlely free form system?2.&nbsp; I believe the system mastery required for standard d&amp;d 5e is comparable to the system mastery required for this system.3.&nbsp; This is not a proposal to make skills like 3e.&nbsp; I hated how 3e handled skills.&nbsp; Most were so narrow and that made many nearly worthless.&nbsp; There also were so many that you were very bad at the vast majority of things in the game.&nbsp; But I don't want to spend more time critiquing 3e.&nbsp; Proficiency in my system would still be the training component.&nbsp; It's just skill points rather than stats would show your natural aptitude for the tasks that skills govern.&nbsp; Thus, skill points would be an abstraction and you would be able to fluff them however you needed4.&nbsp; I don't think it takes any kind of exceptional or rare player to be happy that his fighter can actually be as persuasive as any other character in the group or for the Barbarian to realize he can be just as perceptive as the cleric.&nbsp; Rangers could be great at investigation.&nbsp; It would no longer just be wizards that were the best there.&nbsp; Or wizards could just as stealthy as anyone else.&nbsp; (all this barring expertise of course).&nbsp; Now I get if you don't like breaking that barrier for nostalgia or some other preferences but to suggest that I need some kind of special players to enjoy what this system can provide that the original system cannot is just...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7221335, member: 6795602"] 1. I don't understand how that critique applies to my proposal because I'm proposing to keep proficiency exactly the same. It's the stat bonus to skills that the "free form" component will replace. Then again my "free form" component isn't compleltely free form as it has a number of restriction on it. So why argue against a completlely free form system? 2. I believe the system mastery required for standard d&d 5e is comparable to the system mastery required for this system. 3. This is not a proposal to make skills like 3e. I hated how 3e handled skills. Most were so narrow and that made many nearly worthless. There also were so many that you were very bad at the vast majority of things in the game. But I don't want to spend more time critiquing 3e. Proficiency in my system would still be the training component. It's just skill points rather than stats would show your natural aptitude for the tasks that skills govern. Thus, skill points would be an abstraction and you would be able to fluff them however you needed 4. I don't think it takes any kind of exceptional or rare player to be happy that his fighter can actually be as persuasive as any other character in the group or for the Barbarian to realize he can be just as perceptive as the cleric. Rangers could be great at investigation. It would no longer just be wizards that were the best there. Or wizards could just as stealthy as anyone else. (all this barring expertise of course). Now I get if you don't like breaking that barrier for nostalgia or some other preferences but to suggest that I need some kind of special players to enjoy what this system can provide that the original system cannot is just... [/QUOTE]

Verification