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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9777996" data-attributes="member: 6790260">My interest is on what I can actually achieve at a table when I'm making my characters.When 9 out of 10 GMs is going to view Intimidate as the Screw Yourself Over Even When You Succeed With Flying Colors skill, then yes, I'm going to say "oooookay, never ever ever take that skill; the chance I might get lucky with this GM isn't worth the extreme risk that I won't." Nothing to do with "charop" (if I were optimizing, I would take it, as it's another Cha skill and thus more efficient!), everything to do with not wanting to create future problems for my fellow players.I've already said, in this very thread, that I don't understand why 5e GMs (my current one excluded) choose to flagrantly ignore the text in order to run skills the way they were run in 3e. But it's a pattern I and others have seen. Like more than once I've talked about it on here and other posters have agreed that they see this pattern and are equally baffled by it. It's one of the extraordinarily rare cases where 5e truly does resemble 4e....and yet people actively choose to run it in a way that nearly everyone I've spoken to agrees is worse, rather than just...doing what the text explicitly says to do.And this isn't some recent claim of mine. I've been saying this for like five years now. One of my most upvoted posts ever, where I analyzed ways 5e does and does not use 4e concepts, I specifically mentioned that skills SHOULD be like 4e, but for whatever baffling reason they're instead almost always run in the most closed-minded, restrictive, "anything not permitted is forbidden" manner and I genuinely cannot explain why, other than it's what D&D in general has taught GMs to do with skills.</blockquote>

Verification