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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 4500138" data-attributes="member: 58197">This completely misses the point.  You have to pay X amount of character resources (in this case, skill points/trained skills) to learn a given skill.  If you're paying for adventuring skills and non-adventuring skills out of the same pool of resources, then the game designers must set the relative value of adventuring and non-adventuring skills; in essence, deciding what the "standard" ratio of adventuring to non-adventuring should be.Any DM who deviates from that standard ratio is going to end up with a situation in which players are punished for picking the "wrong" skills, and pretty much depend on the DM to tell them how to make their characters.  That's a lousy way to design a system.You know, bringing up the striker/defender/controller/leader roles is an interesting angle here... because the goal of defining those roles was to ensure that everyone had something effective to do in a fight.  You have the choice to be a heavy melee brute, a nimble archer, or a pyromaniac spellslinger, but regardless of which you choose, you're going to have something effective to do when a fight breaks out.  The choice you specifically do not have is whether to be good at combat.  There is no "noncombatant" role.I see it the same way with separating out adventuring from non-adventuring skills.  You have the choice to be a blacksmith or a sailor or a minstrel or a soldier (that last one being defined by knowledge of military tactics, siege weaponry, logistics, and so forth).  What you do not have is the choice to trade out having a more well-rounded character for being a more effective adventurer... or vice versa.</blockquote>

Verification