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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="abirdcall" data-source="post: 6769472" data-attributes="member: 6748898">It depends on what you see as the role of skills. They just aren't that important for most characters. For most, being an expert in a skill is the realm of the NPC. If you really want to focus on the minutia of differences in skill, D&D seems like a weird place to do it.Take the navigation example. In most games you would look at whether there was a consequence to failure, and if so, if there were special circumstances making navigating difficult. If no to either of those questions then the characters get to their destination. If yes, then make a check, then move on with the game.It is such a small part that it isn't worth spending a lot of time on. If you want to model it in your backstory that is what backgrounds are for.Similar mechanics are in 5e and I think they are done much better than take 10 and take 20.Instead of take 20 there is 'if there is no consequence for failure, it just succeeds' which makes for a better narrative flow and is less fiddly.Instead of take 10 there is the passive check.In both cases the onus is off of the player to say that their character 'takes 10' or 'takes 20'. Instead they can just describe what their character is doing. The DM then describes what happens. Only if the outcome is in doubt and it matters will the DM call for a roll.So the player doesn't have to describe their character as performing game terminology. It's great.</blockquote>

Verification