Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 6096721" data-attributes="member: 54877">Right.  And stacking skills from different axes is problematic--you need to deal with a good way to handle the overlap when it happens and the disjointed messes when it happens.  Plus, you'd like for "ability scores" to be their own axis, mostly.  A fighter getting a mild boost to Str is reinforcing D&D concepts, but is not satisfying the issue here all that much.So let's takes yours and tuxgeo's slant a step further:  What we need is not necessarily for classes to give a flat skill or a bonus to an ability score or even call out something that only affects skills (e.g. mild bonus to three skills chosen from a list).  Rather, if it comes from the class, then it should be a class feature or option that enhances how skills work in some archetypical manner--ideally with a decision point and/or resource bit to it somehow.Or in another words, a bunch of bonuses from this and that do not an interesting skill system make. And that's the problem with suggesting examples for such--anything worth doing along this line implies a skill system worthy of the designation.  However, as a crude example of what I mean, consider and expansion to the skill die idea.  For free, the single skill die works exactly as Next has it now.  You qualify for the skill die, you can use it, no problem.  However, there is also provision for gambling to get extra skill dice by risking short-term fatigue or even injury to get extra dice.  Make an ability check, -2 per extra die attempted.  Succeed, no cost.  Fail, you still get the extra dice, but you take hit point damage equal to the extra dice you roll.  Then gives classes bonuses and/or extra dice based on the options they have chosen.  For example, a fighter has generally chosen a style based on fluid movement.  Well, part of the benefit from that style itself is that if he gambles this way or a desperate jump or balance check, he has a better shot at it.Note the differences in the consequences for failure here.  A rogue with a great tumbling/jumping ability has a high check on jumping across the chasm.  He does this stuff all the time (routinely), but might fail if he pushes his luck too much.  Meanwhile, his buddy the fighter is not quite so skilled at jumping.  But the consequences on a desperate jump twist a little.  If both jump, and know they have to make it, then both gamble.  The rogue needs to gamble less, because he already has a higher skill, but runs more risk at failing for what he does gamble.  The fighter gambles a lot of dice, because he knows that straining his back is something he can take.  The consequences of failure become, most likely, the amount of damage done, not falling to their respective deaths below.  Or occasionally a character will be too timid (gamble too little and not get enough boost) and thus fall for that reason.  Which is realistic. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification