Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Szatany" data-source="post: 6121923" data-attributes="member: 21178">Wow, talk about starting a new week.Feats: Overall I like what I'm reading so far. I think using feats as building blocks and splitting prestige classes and paragon paths into feats is a great idea. It wouldn't be so great if feats were minor, like they used to be. But combined with the fact that feats are getting an upgrade this is a great news. Flexibility in advancing your character will be something unparelled compared to any previous edition. At the same time the option to improve ability scores instead makes it so I don't have to browse through hundreds of feats if I don't want to.What I don't like comes from the nature of ability modifiers themselves. Adding +1 to an ability score and getting nothing in return because I just hit odd number sucks. I don't know if there's an elegant solution to this, but  I know that in my games I'll soften the blow somehow. Maybe grant +1 to ability checks in advance for all who have +1/2 modifier - that's like +1 to skill checks so it's pretty good.I'm undecided how I want prerequisites of feats to look like. Since prestige classes will be broken down, does it mean we will see big feat trees? Hope not.Skills: Skills are going optional. Probably a good idea but not really important to me as I always use them. That bit about adjusting DC if you use skills in your game? That bad. That's very bad. What about the principle that players may use different rule sets at the same table? If two characters attempt the same challenge and one uses skill system? DC for him is higher? That's ridiculous. Not to mention that adjusting DCs by itself isn't very good mechanic IMO.What I'd rather see is a mechanic for skills that's similar to (dis)advantage mechanic. For example, if someone makes a check his skill applies to, and he rolls a natural 1-10, he gets a reroll. If the reroll is 1-10, he has to keep the score. This is better because it doesn't inflate the numbers, it works well with bounded accuracy, it works with (dis)advantage rules, and DM has less math to do.Likewise, same mechanic would work well with new knowledge checks from backgrounds, and the reverse would work well with proficiency checks.Backgrounds: Overall I like new backgrounds. They had to change anyway since skills are now optional and I'm guessing backgrounds are still mandatory. Proficiencies are a nice way to put thieves' tools somewhere. I also like that other proficiencies are possible, including (I'm assuming) weapon proficiencies. What I dislike is that without a proficiency you can't make an attempt. I know this is realistic(ish), but I want to play a heroic game where people can do extraordinary things, and I'd like to at least have a sliver of chance when attempting tasks I know nothing about. Because of that I propose using system from above. If someone makes a check that requires proficiency without having that proficiency, and she rolls a natural 11-20, she must reroll. If the reroll is 11-20, she keeps the score.Areas of knowledge - a good idea in regard to areas of knowledge, but not the +10 bonus. Better because instead of having a list of broad lore categories and forcing each character into them, we can have much more specific areas, each tailored to a specific background. The bonus is bad in an environment of bounded accuracy, see above for my proposed solution.Also, why no mention of specialities?</blockquote>

Verification