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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mirrorrorrim" data-source="post: 9228093" data-attributes="member: 7040132">First, casters have the same problem as martials. If they don't invest in the ability in question, they are going to suck at it, and casters RARELY have the spells they need to overcome an obstacle prepared unless they knew about the obstacle ahead of time. And if they do, they would have use at least one appropriate spell slot, which is unavailable for future combat effectiveness that day. I also think people put too much on the idea that all casters are purely better than martials because some casters may have a potential non-physical workaround for an obstacle if they planned ahead. That's not the common reality or situation in my experience.Also, for people in the back who say "roll an Acrobatics skill check," that isn't how it works. The mechanic is "roll an Ability check, and if the DM says certain one or more skills could apply to the check, the PC can apply their appropriate skill modifier for that check." Sure, some situations ask for either Strength or Dexterity checks if it makes sense for the challenge in question, but they should not be totally interchangeable.It's when people start house-ruling things that stuff gets weird, like "you can't roll a particular ability check unless you are trained in X skill", or ratcheting up DCs for everyone because one person is good at it. Those aren't player-friendly house rules.I completely disagree that Sleight of Hand and Dancing (or other skills, for that matter) should be rolled into "Acrobatics". Neither of them universally count as Acrobatics in any way shape or form. That instead sounds like someone wanting to get rid of "skills" altogether, and instead allowing the PC to become further proficient in all rolls for a particular Ability, like a Rogue just saying "I choose to become proficient in Dex and Wisdom checks, so I apply my PB to all such checks." That is too narrow of design. There is no granularity for spreading out actual skills. There are only 6 "skills" in that paradigm, and the number of "skills" a species or class can be proficient in has to be reduced, or it becomes too easy to become proficient in all Abilities.</blockquote>

Verification