Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Muh" data-source="post: 9538682" data-attributes="member: 7042567">The problem with all these skills is that they have no concrete effects, Animal Handling probably needs more work in the book because it has lots of utility in reality, but needs GM guidance.Performance is so bad that I don't even count it as a skill, but in my opinion it is bad for a completely different reason than Intimidate is bad. Intimidate sucks because it has no rules, but it is powerful "in theory". In theory a strong barbarian can intimidate an army.Performance is bad because it's more difficult to imagine a practical use case of any consequence. I think you need to completely abandon any sense of realism here and simply allow performance to do supernatural things. A musician so skilled he can charm a person with his music.In a way, yes. An naughty word GM can always override anything a player can try even with skills that have established functional rules (even with things that aren't skills such that spells). But the more anchored in actionable rules a skill is, the more annoying the GM has to be to overrule it.It's one of the foundational issues underlying the absolutely abyssal rift in competence between casters and martials.If you absolutely must open a locked door, the safest bet is a wizard with knock, because he absolutely cannot fail. Is it noisy? Sure. But it's 100% guaranteed.All these threads about balance issues in 5E essentially boils down to this difference in capability.If you play a wizard you know exactly how good you will be at something, because your spells define exactly how competent you are, and it will take an extremely arbitrary GM to keep you away from using your spells. A rogue or any other martial, on the other hand, will rely entirely on GM-fiat to function.Unless the GM is biased, specifically, in favour of martials only, by being permissive with skills, you will have problems.</blockquote>

Verification