Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
skill proficiencies point buy
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7616956" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>"I've literally had two different players curse that their uber-agile elves most likely would fail at climbing a tree or wall."</p><p></p><p>First, climbing by default doesnt requir a check. Isnt it half speed unless it's difficult? What kind of tree climbing are we talking about?</p><p></p><p>But, the system already allows the GM to allow/call-for a Dex (Athletics) check if they think it's appropriate. </p><p></p><p>So your higher dex elf wanting to climb a tree just has to describe his actions in a way that leads the GM to decide (for a difficult climb) that Dex (Athletics ) is the appropriate call.</p><p></p><p>Second, the two different proficiencies divide the types of training - the kinds of things a character has experience in. The player can choose the ones appropriate to their character. If your elf is supposed to be very good at climbing, why didnt you take athletics since that is the skill that includes climbing? Complaints like thst early on would likely be met with "ok so you wanna swap out what for what in your background?" In between games</p><p></p><p>Third, to me, when a player is unhappy at the success/fail etc in a game they are playing in, that's more indicative of a disconnect between the GM depiction and their understanding. Did the GM not describe and set the scene with the tree up in a way that they understand why a check is even needed and why it's so difficult for them to succeed? In my gsmes, unless there are surprises or unknowns, my players tend to know the DC before attempting a task due to my efforts st being not just descriptive but informative in my depictions of the situations. </p><p></p><p>Fourth, design... </p><p></p><p></p><p>I would generally be against creating an overly broad "lets get physical" mega-skill myself when I see nature, religion, etc snd persuasion, deception, intimidate perform etc broken down as they are. It seem inconsistent with the rest. </p><p></p><p>Consider...</p><p></p><p>Physical stuff</p><p>Ability scores tested Str or Dex (rarely con)</p><p>Skills athletics, acrobatics, stealth, sleight hand and sometimes performance maybe?</p><p></p><p>Brainy stuff</p><p>Abilities tested Int Wis</p><p>Religion, Arcana, History, nature, investigation, Medicine (insight arguably)</p><p></p><p>Social stuff</p><p>Ability tested Cha or Wis (possibly Int)</p><p>Deception, Persuasion, Intimidation, insight, (investigation useful)</p><p></p><p>What's left - survival, animal handling and perception?</p><p></p><p>Regardless of where you put those, it really doesnt look like the physical set is somehow plagued by excessive sub-dividing and compared to the rest in need of consolidation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7616956, member: 6919838"] "I've literally had two different players curse that their uber-agile elves most likely would fail at climbing a tree or wall." First, climbing by default doesnt requir a check. Isnt it half speed unless it's difficult? What kind of tree climbing are we talking about? But, the system already allows the GM to allow/call-for a Dex (Athletics) check if they think it's appropriate. So your higher dex elf wanting to climb a tree just has to describe his actions in a way that leads the GM to decide (for a difficult climb) that Dex (Athletics ) is the appropriate call. Second, the two different proficiencies divide the types of training - the kinds of things a character has experience in. The player can choose the ones appropriate to their character. If your elf is supposed to be very good at climbing, why didnt you take athletics since that is the skill that includes climbing? Complaints like thst early on would likely be met with "ok so you wanna swap out what for what in your background?" In between games Third, to me, when a player is unhappy at the success/fail etc in a game they are playing in, that's more indicative of a disconnect between the GM depiction and their understanding. Did the GM not describe and set the scene with the tree up in a way that they understand why a check is even needed and why it's so difficult for them to succeed? In my gsmes, unless there are surprises or unknowns, my players tend to know the DC before attempting a task due to my efforts st being not just descriptive but informative in my depictions of the situations. Fourth, design... I would generally be against creating an overly broad "lets get physical" mega-skill myself when I see nature, religion, etc snd persuasion, deception, intimidate perform etc broken down as they are. It seem inconsistent with the rest. Consider... Physical stuff Ability scores tested Str or Dex (rarely con) Skills athletics, acrobatics, stealth, sleight hand and sometimes performance maybe? Brainy stuff Abilities tested Int Wis Religion, Arcana, History, nature, investigation, Medicine (insight arguably) Social stuff Ability tested Cha or Wis (possibly Int) Deception, Persuasion, Intimidation, insight, (investigation useful) What's left - survival, animal handling and perception? Regardless of where you put those, it really doesnt look like the physical set is somehow plagued by excessive sub-dividing and compared to the rest in need of consolidation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
skill proficiencies point buy
Top