Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6092751" data-attributes="member: 14506">I am inclined to agree with Abdulalhazrad on this one. I think the basic game should not limit players and the skills they want to use. Instead it should allow more free-form play, meaning they have all skills. Then the DM can decide if something is within the scope of the character's knowledge. Answers like the following seem to be within the scope of play in the basic game. Oh of course, you are a wizard you can attempt to discern the properties of the wand, please make an INT check. Or... Of course, you are dwarf you can determine the rock formations. Rogue, traps etc. I suppose guidelines could be encapsulated for a DM not using the skill system. Ultimately though I think many people who do enjoy a basic game enjoy a free-form use of skills. If you are tying everything back to the 6 abilities and not limiting through the skill system. It would be a bother to include skill limiters for these types of players. Because remember the two minds on this are those that want their character modeled through the skill system, and others who want to just explore and are not hampered by that complication. And for a DM to call for an INT check to know some tidbit and for the players to roll, and be done. Not for players to look at their character sheet and say oh you called for tidbit X and I only have tidbit Y knowledge... So I guess I cannot roll.In a standard level of game, I think modeling the characters more around the concept of what does this character know how to do? Characters under this assumption would be more like the characters of 3e/4e where they can only do certain things. Or roll untrained really crappy but still have a shot at it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sadrik, post: 6092751, member: 14506"] I am inclined to agree with Abdulalhazrad on this one. I think the basic game should not limit players and the skills they want to use. Instead it should allow more free-form play, meaning they have all skills. Then the DM can decide if something is within the scope of the character's knowledge. Answers like the following seem to be within the scope of play in the basic game. Oh of course, you are a wizard you can attempt to discern the properties of the wand, please make an INT check. Or... Of course, you are dwarf you can determine the rock formations. Rogue, traps etc. I suppose guidelines could be encapsulated for a DM not using the skill system. Ultimately though I think many people who do enjoy a basic game enjoy a free-form use of skills. If you are tying everything back to the 6 abilities and not limiting through the skill system. It would be a bother to include skill limiters for these types of players. Because remember the two minds on this are those that want their character modeled through the skill system, and others who want to just explore and are not hampered by that complication. And for a DM to call for an INT check to know some tidbit and for the players to roll, and be done. Not for players to look at their character sheet and say oh you called for tidbit X and I only have tidbit Y knowledge... So I guess I cannot roll. In a standard level of game, I think modeling the characters more around the concept of what does this character know how to do? Characters under this assumption would be more like the characters of 3e/4e where they can only do certain things. Or roll untrained really crappy but still have a shot at it. [/QUOTE]

Verification