Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TreChriron" data-source="post: 5642728" data-attributes="member: 5046">I like your skill breakup!I would break out &quot;what a skill covers&quot; and &quot;what a skill does&quot; for all your broad skills.&nbsp; Then feats should enhance &quot;what you can do with a skill&quot;. The base actions or checks for a skill should be built into the skill. Feats should make you better or special or more adept at certain activities.I would create a &quot;specialty&quot; that is required for broad area skills like Academics or Science or Pilot and optional for other skills.&nbsp; Then you can have &quot;proficiency&quot; which covers &quot;where I know how to use this skill&quot;.&nbsp; Essentially, broad skills like Academics are really a collection of more specific skills. If you define generically what a Skill can do, you have made the approach more efficient. Specialties might lower the DC further where non-proficiency provides a DC penalty. Maybe make proficiencies optional?Feats shouldn't open up &quot;what the skill does&quot; but instead &quot;what things in this skill am I really good at OR what additional things can I do outside the generic norm&quot;. So, a feat shouldn't open up Helicopters ,that should be a Proficiency or Specialty (you trained on Helicopters). Feats should open up new uses of the skill or enhance maneuvers, etc. They make my character &quot;cooler&quot;. So, Barrel Roll might be a feat, or Dog Fighter.I like the focus where feats don't add bonuses. That is an excellent approach that simplifies the execution of the game. I would stick with that approach.Just my two cents...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TreChriron, post: 5642728, member: 5046"] I like your skill breakup! I would break out "what a skill covers" and "what a skill does" for all your broad skills. Then feats should enhance "what you can do with a skill". The base actions or checks for a skill should be built into the skill. Feats should make you better or special or more adept at certain activities. I would create a "specialty" that is required for broad area skills like Academics or Science or Pilot and optional for other skills. Then you can have "proficiency" which covers "where I know how to use this skill". Essentially, broad skills like Academics are really a collection of more specific skills. If you define generically what a Skill can do, you have made the approach more efficient. Specialties might lower the DC further where non-proficiency provides a DC penalty. Maybe make proficiencies optional? Feats shouldn't open up "what the skill does" but instead "what things in this skill am I really good at OR what additional things can I do outside the generic norm". So, a feat shouldn't open up Helicopters ,that should be a Proficiency or Specialty (you trained on Helicopters). Feats should open up new uses of the skill or enhance maneuvers, etc. They make my character "cooler". So, Barrel Roll might be a feat, or Dog Fighter. I like the focus where feats don't add bonuses. That is an excellent approach that simplifies the execution of the game. I would stick with that approach. Just my two cents... [/QUOTE]

Verification