Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="thzero" data-source="post: 5800427" data-attributes="member: 86754">Not really, its just as relevant whether it be fantasy or sci-fi or adventure genre.&nbsp; And yes, even that wizard pal of the fighter has to cross the raging river and generally he's going to fail at it, unless he gets lots of help or has a fly spell or other magical device that circumvents the need for skills.Actually it doesn't.&nbsp; It does both.&nbsp; If you don't want skills, don't use them and just roll against the abilities.&nbsp; If you want generic grouped skills, use them and roll against ability + skill.&nbsp; And if you want more fine-grained skills, use them.&nbsp; Hardly &quot;bloats&quot; the character sheet anymore than it did or does in 3e or 4e (4e skills may not bloat as much, but it has bloat elsewhere); it may actually decrease the bloat.&nbsp; It is not very hard at all, isn't all that different than what 3e/4e have now, and its tiered so it fits in well with what the stated goals of 5e are which is to allow for varying degrees of complexity for different groups.Quite a few older gaming systems have used it (one that springs to mind off the top of my head is WEG's d6).&nbsp; A similar mechanism is used in some parts of M&amp;M2/3e.I can agree with this for sure.&nbsp; To me two of the issues with the 3e/4e skill system are the open-ended bonuses, and the lack of a standard progress across all skills.The issue, which is probably the reason for it, is the nature of D&amp;D which is to fight really big, bad monsters which may have really large modifiers on abilities or high ranks in a small subset of skills.&nbsp;&nbsp; Not to mention deities.&nbsp; Putting a limit on the range of the overall skill bonuses make its a bit harder, in a linear system, to represent the beyond human nature of these monsters and deities.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="thzero, post: 5800427, member: 86754"] Not really, its just as relevant whether it be fantasy or sci-fi or adventure genre. And yes, even that wizard pal of the fighter has to cross the raging river and generally he's going to fail at it, unless he gets lots of help or has a fly spell or other magical device that circumvents the need for skills. Actually it doesn't. It does both. If you don't want skills, don't use them and just roll against the abilities. If you want generic grouped skills, use them and roll against ability + skill. And if you want more fine-grained skills, use them. Hardly "bloats" the character sheet anymore than it did or does in 3e or 4e (4e skills may not bloat as much, but it has bloat elsewhere); it may actually decrease the bloat. It is not very hard at all, isn't all that different than what 3e/4e have now, and its tiered so it fits in well with what the stated goals of 5e are which is to allow for varying degrees of complexity for different groups. Quite a few older gaming systems have used it (one that springs to mind off the top of my head is WEG's d6). A similar mechanism is used in some parts of M&M2/3e. I can agree with this for sure. To me two of the issues with the 3e/4e skill system are the open-ended bonuses, and the lack of a standard progress across all skills. The issue, which is probably the reason for it, is the nature of D&D which is to fight really big, bad monsters which may have really large modifiers on abilities or high ranks in a small subset of skills. Not to mention deities. Putting a limit on the range of the overall skill bonuses make its a bit harder, in a linear system, to represent the beyond human nature of these monsters and deities. [/QUOTE]

Verification