Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RevTurkey" data-source="post: 6185835">FAO Mistwell:Hi and thanks for making some interesting comments on my last post.Okay, so I guess you are right in that yes Skills do sort of work that way but I suppose what I am getting at is that the new way things are presented doesn't seem very intuitive to me. Maybe it is the word 'Proficiency' that I don't like? I am not so keen on skills being lumped in with tools being er skills...does that make sense? I think it would be easier to follow if you just had Skills and then skill bonus. Leaving tools as just the means with which to work the skills. Skill bonus derived from level....fair enough I guess that Could work. I don't like that (I hope I got this right) the character attacks are also based on this very same progression curve. That seems a bit wacko. Surely Fighters should progress at a better rate? Also ... Expertise seems a bit clunky as well. It just all feels a bit messy and not elegant. That was my impression anyway. Maybe I am stuck in the past and need to look again.if you just had Skills tied to a Stat mod (or several depending on use) and then Skills giving a flat bonus (say +2)... With bonus points to spend on selected skills (to cover Rogue abilities or Wizard Knowledges etc) at various levels...say get three +1's to distribute among existing skills at every odd level up...or learn a new skill maybe instead....only very very loose thinking off the top of my head but you get the idea. Don't see how that would be bad or confusing. I would put attack bonus separate as that is then more easily managed and feels a bit more like old D&D. Get rid of Proficiency and Expertise...have a more straight forward way to describe things...that is what I want I think. I can see how they are trying to tie it all together but at the moment it seems messy to me. Maybe everyone else loves the way it is presented, fair enough...you have a good time playing it that way...doubt I will. No sour grapes you understand but I want to play Official D&D really because of the history of it all and my own background as a player. I don't massively care for clones and OGL copies...not fair when WoTc spent a lot of money to buy the game...for good or bad.As to Advantage mechanisms...I guess I just don't like it. I don't like that it is tied to certain class features (Barbarian Reckless Attack for example) To be honest, it feels like a gimmick. I would use Advantage for back attacks, maybe disadvantage when not skilled in a weapon (as it works now) and maybe disadvantage from prone or when DM needs a quick mechanism etc...but keep it away from Class, Race and Feats. Obviously, just my views here. Not the official views of Top Gear magazine.Anyway, think I am waffling a bit, probably wrong about certain things etc.i just didn't find what they are presenting as very friendly or exiting to me.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification