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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6112081" data-attributes="member: 1465">This, but 20 ain't nearly enough. Ideally, I think at least twice as many that the group can cover, so more than 30, maybe 40.Why so harsh? Because it isn't harsh at all... With some exceptions, any party already covers all skills, even a single PC can attempt anything that isn't label as "trained only" which is a minority of skills.Do you need someone in the party with the Climb skill? Not really, because anyone can climb.Do you need someone in the party with Knowledge(XYZ) skill even if this is trained-only? Not really, because knowledge/lore skills are usually just meant to provide occasional clues that make some situation simpler, but the DM can always make sure the situation isn't impossible without the knowledge (in which case, it is still impossible even if you have the skill because you aren't guaranteed to succeed on the roll).In 5e skills are clearly just bonuses that make you better, not "stuff that needs to be covered by the group", because they already got it covered.Notable exceptions could be rogue skills like open lock and disable traps, and very few more like tracking (assuming these will remain "trained only"). Even in that case, the game should be playable even by a party that is missing one of these... if an adventure is "impossible" without one PC having a specific skill, then it's a badly designed adventure, just like one that is "impossible" without a specific spell or item. And note that still such adventure will be "impossible" if the PC has the skill but fails at the check! Meaning that the only way to continue in the adventure is the DM allowing a retry until successful, which means she could have just handwaved success, so it is a badly designed adventure if it strictly requires one specific skill.</blockquote>

Verification