Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Darth Palpy" data-source="post: 6299733" data-attributes="member: 82091"><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?2167-Khaalis" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?2167-Khaalis</a>@Khaalis: You take it quite far as "Background" skills go, in my point of view ^^. I do understand the logic of it, but in my mind, it was concerning "Lore skill" exclusively (as I consider theoretical knowledge to be faster to learn, opposite of pratical or semi-pratical skills). It's also easier to tie it to the INT attribute, and quite restrictive in way that players must carefully consider what they take as Lore skills spec.For active skills (which I see as all the other skills except Lore skills) I tend to be quite restrictive, because if players could specialize too much, well, specialization loses a great part of its appeal and goal.I confess that my main inspirations for those modifcations came (in a circonvoluted way) from the new Iron Kingdoms RPG and Fading Suns systems. [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION]:Would it be possible to see those playtest rules ? (if it doesn't take much time, of course^^) I do find that intriguing. Anyway, a possible sidebar about specializations could be a great thing, giving more options to GM and PC alike, don't you think ?I also wonder as Khaalis how can it be swingy ?</blockquote>