Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 5784229" data-attributes="member: 3887">These days I prefer going the exact opposite route: either simple static skills like 2e's NWP's (which don't scale with level), ability checks instead of skills (which is actually what 2e's NWPs were, I think), or no skills at all in the default rules.The way skills were set up in 3e, they made rules-mastery more important than, hmmm, let's call it &quot;situation-mastery&quot;. The biggest bonuses to skill checks came from clever use of the build mechanics, while the bonuses from live play were set (well, suggested) at +2/-2.This had the effect of insulating characters from the effects of the environment they're acting in. Success was more a question of manipulating the rules, rather than interacting with the fictional environment.I'd like to see more focus on situations, and less mechanical bonus-hunting.&nbsp; I also like the idea PCs can be really good at something right from the start. If skills don't scale w/level, they can be. And since skills have tended to be 2nd-rate &quot;levers&quot; with which to move the game world, this wouldn't pose balance issues (of course, thieves skills would have to go back to being class abilities, and not part of the general skill system).Plus, the skill granularity in 3e was mostly irrelevant, in my experience. The system favored specialists. While adding a rank here or there for characterization purposes was nice, it was also largely meaningless in terms of PC success rates.I'm all for characterization, but in most cases it shouldn't cost build resources.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mallus, post: 5784229, member: 3887"] These days I prefer going the exact opposite route: either simple static skills like 2e's NWP's (which don't scale with level), ability checks instead of skills (which is actually what 2e's NWPs were, I think), or no skills at all in the default rules. The way skills were set up in 3e, they made rules-mastery more important than, hmmm, let's call it "situation-mastery". The biggest bonuses to skill checks came from clever use of the build mechanics, while the bonuses from live play were set (well, suggested) at +2/-2. This had the effect of insulating characters from the effects of the environment they're acting in. Success was more a question of manipulating the rules, rather than interacting with the fictional environment. I'd like to see more focus on situations, and less mechanical bonus-hunting. I also like the idea PCs can be really good at something right from the start. If skills don't scale w/level, they can be. And since skills have tended to be 2nd-rate "levers" with which to move the game world, this wouldn't pose balance issues (of course, thieves skills would have to go back to being class abilities, and not part of the general skill system). Plus, the skill granularity in 3e was mostly irrelevant, in my experience. The system favored specialists. While adding a rank here or there for characterization purposes was nice, it was also largely meaningless in terms of PC success rates. I'm all for characterization, but in most cases it shouldn't cost build resources. [/QUOTE]

Verification