NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6183728" data-attributes="member: 1465">I agree, going that route would make advantage structural to a lot of checks. I'd rather want advantage to be occasional, not frequent, thus limit the amount of constant (i.e. not situational) sources of advantage, which we already have quite a few...Not sure, it would be quite a huge departure from one of the traditional elements of D&D. Let's see what they come up with.I share the puzzling... in many ways, proficiencies and skills can be the same.But I disagree on the latter part. I really wouldn't want to silo backgrounds skills vs adventuring skills. Some players are simply not interested in background skills. I am, on the other hand, sometimes interested depending on the character concept, and when I take a background skill I want that to matter; however, this doesn't necessarily mean they have to matter during adventuring, they might matter between adventuring or to prepare for adventuring. Maybe a skill in blacksmithing can be useful to strengthen the durability of your equipment, while a skill in alchemy or herbalism can be used between adventuring to create items that you then use during adventuring.Rather than being worried on skill X being less useful than skill Y (which is inevitable to some extent, no matter how you silo them), I want freedom in choosing whether my PC leans towards quickly-usable skills such as Athletics or background skills such as professions. I totally hate siloing, it forces every PC of mine to comply to whatever arrangement the designers have settle with. Instead, if they put all tools proficiencies, weapon proficiencies, skills and languages together and let the player choose, then character design is really more free. And then just work on making each of them useful enough during the game: obviously, in a fast-paced game with the PCs permanently on hostile ground, profession skills and languages aren't going to have significant use, but let the DM handle that. If I'm running a game like that, it's up to me to inform the players not to pick professions because they aren't worth it.Yeah, it is an issue, and not easy to solve... Disadvantage for not being proficient however is IMHO much better than advantage for being proficient, it serves as a warning "don't use this on a regular basis" but still lets you try.Both capability and consistency would be good, advantage alone (besides being too common if used for proficiency) does not add capability. Flat bonus adds both, but the effect on consistency is small. I am not sure I want to have a Take10 rule for consistency, it was quite ok in 3e but led to frequent controversies.Once again, the problem is that using the d20 on skills is too swingy because the range between 1 and 20 is too large. The d20 is OK for everything else, but maybe not skills.</blockquote>

Verification