Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6122542" data-attributes="member: 1465">I wrote that I'm in favor of a general rule similar to weapon prof, i.e. &quot;strong&quot; disadvantage to checks if you are not proficient at the skill or tools, with &quot;strong&quot; meaning that disadvantage cannot be cancelled by advantage (but this bit is arguable).But we have to understand the situation at hand. Improvising i.e. attempting a check your PC is not good at, is going to be used in emergency situations or situations where the players are running out of ideas, and only if there is no one around trained at that. Therefore it is quite important that the penalty is significant (and I think disadvantage is significant enough). Otherwise it devalues the significance of getting trained in something.Realism is only a fringe benefit. It matters for some believability, but it is not the most important thing and it's not the main reason for having non-weapon proficiency rules (and in this example, I think you're wrong... I would need you to be there to tell me where to attach that rope and how to tie that knot, I can tie my shoes but I don't know how to tie sailor's knots without instructions from someone who is in fact trained... if I improvise a knot on a thick sailing rope, it'll almost certainly never work! if you know how to do it, it's too easy to think anyone can do it, but it's false). Non-weapon proficiency rules main purpose is to create roles in the game, so that whenever the group needs to sail a ship, they ask the trained PC to take that role, and if no one has they hire someone or improvise. Once again, I am in favor of allowing improvisation, just as long as it clearly is an inferior solution to getting trained.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6122542, member: 1465"] I wrote that I'm in favor of a general rule similar to weapon prof, i.e. "strong" disadvantage to checks if you are not proficient at the skill or tools, with "strong" meaning that disadvantage cannot be cancelled by advantage (but this bit is arguable). But we have to understand the situation at hand. Improvising i.e. attempting a check your PC is not good at, is going to be used in emergency situations or situations where the players are running out of ideas, and only if there is no one around trained at that. Therefore it is quite important that the penalty is significant (and I think disadvantage is significant enough). Otherwise it devalues the significance of getting trained in something. Realism is only a fringe benefit. It matters for some believability, but it is not the most important thing and it's not the main reason for having non-weapon proficiency rules (and in this example, I think you're wrong... I would need you to be there to tell me where to attach that rope and how to tie that knot, I can tie my shoes but I don't know how to tie sailor's knots without instructions from someone who is in fact trained... if I improvise a knot on a thick sailing rope, it'll almost certainly never work! if you know how to do it, it's too easy to think anyone can do it, but it's false). Non-weapon proficiency rules main purpose is to create [B]roles[/B] in the game, so that whenever the group needs to sail a ship, they ask the trained PC to take that role, and if no one has they hire someone or improvise. Once again, I am in favor of allowing improvisation, just as long as it clearly is an inferior solution to getting trained. [/QUOTE]

Verification