Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8495562" data-attributes="member: 82106">Why? Why not based on some sort of objective process? I mean, AT LEAST one that establishes the relative effectiveness of one PC vs another!I have no idea why divorcing skill from class was problematic, I don't agree with you on that one. But as I say, in that sense 4e 'cured' the problem, there are canonically a closed list of 19 skills, no more, no less. They cover pretty much every situation that would come up in a D&D game, certainly with a level of granularity which is sufficient for establishing the standard modus of each PC (along with the rest of the PC build, but skills are a fairly good baseline to build from). 5e has, IMHO, made some mistakes with skills, but the fundamental conception is intact, they are basically 'knacks'. They represent ways in which a given PC approaches problem solving; one character lies, another convinces, a third threatens.I really see no reason why this would be in any way inferior to AD&D's "Oh just make something up and toss some random type of dice" which was, IMHO abhorrent. I mean, maybe in 1979 it was just not quite cutting edge, but it got old fast. I mean Bunnies and Burrows had a serviceable skill system in 1975...</blockquote>