Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ferratus" data-source="post: 5991619" data-attributes="member: 55966">I can't agree with the notion that ability scores shouldn't matter for skills.&nbsp; Natural gifts have to matter, otherwise it doesn't make sense.&nbsp; You can't have imbeciles good at lore checks, or fat and/or weak men good at running, jumping and climbing.I also don't like a strict skill system like in 2e's proficiencies system, or 3e's skill system, because you need a wide variety of skills in a campaign, and often their are outliers where not having a certain skill in the party can grind the game to a halt.&nbsp; As well, it makes specialized skills impossible where the entire group needs to do them (such as stealth).Having ability scores be the default skill resolution allows for you to have a good chance of being able to do a skill, while skill training allows you to be particularly good at one skill.&nbsp;&nbsp; So if you don't have a rogue, the fighter can fill the trapfinding and stealth rolls relatively well, the wizard can handle picking the locks, and the halfling cleric can pick a few pockets.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you need to roll a stealth check, everyone has at least a 50% chance to try, instead of just being impossible.So I think the current system is a good compromise.&nbsp;&nbsp; I could also live with people just having skills based around what their class, background, and speciality is, without hard-coding specific skills, but I understand that &quot;my character knows this&quot; on a character sheet helps people to envision their characters better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ferratus, post: 5991619, member: 55966"] I can't agree with the notion that ability scores shouldn't matter for skills. Natural gifts have to matter, otherwise it doesn't make sense. You can't have imbeciles good at lore checks, or fat and/or weak men good at running, jumping and climbing. I also don't like a strict skill system like in 2e's proficiencies system, or 3e's skill system, because you need a wide variety of skills in a campaign, and often their are outliers where not having a certain skill in the party can grind the game to a halt. As well, it makes specialized skills impossible where the entire group needs to do them (such as stealth). Having ability scores be the default skill resolution allows for you to have a good chance of being able to do a skill, while skill training allows you to be particularly good at one skill. So if you don't have a rogue, the fighter can fill the trapfinding and stealth rolls relatively well, the wizard can handle picking the locks, and the halfling cleric can pick a few pockets. If you need to roll a stealth check, everyone has at least a 50% chance to try, instead of just being impossible. So I think the current system is a good compromise. I could also live with people just having skills based around what their class, background, and speciality is, without hard-coding specific skills, but I understand that "my character knows this" on a character sheet helps people to envision their characters better. [/QUOTE]

Verification