Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BluejayJunior" data-source="post: 7993453" data-attributes="member: 6918769">As I think others have mentioned before, don't think of actions as skill checks. The players say want they are trying to accomplish. The DM decides if a check is necessary. This should be based on whether or not there is a meaningful consequence of failure, what they are trying to accomplish, how they are doing that, and if there is a time limit to the task. The DM then decides what to roll is necessary. Start with one of the 6 abilities and decide which of those is most suited to the check. Then decide if there is a corresponding skill for that. If not, decide if the character's background would allow for adding their proficiency bonus. I definitely get that is seems very abstract compared to the complexity of editions like 3rd/Pathfinder. And that can make it seem like there isn't enough there. But I would recommend actually playing it to see how it plays out for you before deciding whether it has enough fiddly bits for you. Once you get into the game, it could be that you don't really miss those fiddly bits like you thought you would and that those missing skills don't really come up. Or maybe you realize that all those bits are important for your group and this edition doesn't quite fit for you. Either way is fine. But I've found that actual play is best for determining how well you like something.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BluejayJunior, post: 7993453, member: 6918769"] As I think others have mentioned before, don't think of actions as skill checks. The players say want they are trying to accomplish. The DM decides if a check is necessary. This should be based on whether or not there is a meaningful consequence of failure, what they are trying to accomplish, how they are doing that, and if there is a time limit to the task. The DM then decides what to roll is necessary. Start with one of the 6 abilities and decide which of those is most suited to the check. Then decide if there is a corresponding skill for that. If not, decide if the character's background would allow for adding their proficiency bonus. I definitely get that is seems very abstract compared to the complexity of editions like 3rd/Pathfinder. And that can make it seem like there isn't enough there. But I would recommend actually playing it to see how it plays out for you before deciding whether it has enough fiddly bits for you. Once you get into the game, it could be that you don't really miss those fiddly bits like you thought you would and that those missing skills don't really come up. Or maybe you realize that all those bits are important for your group and this edition doesn't quite fit for you. Either way is fine. But I've found that actual play is best for determining how well you like something. [/QUOTE]

Verification