Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 5954043" data-attributes="member: 1879">To my mind the problem with the oblivious rogue is that a newbie with poor understanding of the system built a clueless rogue. And that's not bad, really. I'd rather be able to make Belkar the oblivious ranger, than be strong armed into being good at everything somebody else thinks my character is supposed to be good at. Stats should effect performance. An idiot will never be as good at programming or calculus as a genius, that klutzy genius will never be at good at basket ball or trap shooting as the dexterous idiot. &quot;It's your job&quot; is not a reason to take talent out of the equation, some people suck at their jobs. I don't think 5e is going to go down the system mastery road of 3e, but asking people to put high number in relevant stats for things they want to be good at, and low numbers in stats means they acknowledge a weakness in that dept, I'm okay with it.That having been said an &quot;Expert Basketweaver&quot; feat that grants advantage for use of a trained skill seems fine to me. While we're on the subject I don't think I'd have a problem with an &quot;Idiot savant&quot; feat that replaced a stat bonus with a flat +3 or +5 for the purpose of one skill, to showcase the alcholic forger whose tremmor somehow goes away when he picks up the tools of his trade. The reason that is good is it allows you to overcome a weakness but at the not inconsiderable cost of a feat to show the effort you put into overcoming your weakness. And as it is recall that while the cleric can score higher on a trap spoting roll than the rogue, the rogues skill mastery means he still has the better average.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andor, post: 5954043, member: 1879"] To my mind the problem with the oblivious rogue is that a newbie with poor understanding of the system built a clueless rogue. And that's not bad, really. I'd rather be able to make Belkar the oblivious ranger, than be strong armed into being good at everything somebody else thinks my character is supposed to be good at. Stats should effect performance. An idiot will never be as good at programming or calculus as a genius, that klutzy genius will never be at good at basket ball or trap shooting as the dexterous idiot. "It's your job" is not a reason to take talent out of the equation, some people suck at their jobs. I don't think 5e is going to go down the system mastery road of 3e, but asking people to put high number in relevant stats for things they want to be good at, and low numbers in stats means they acknowledge a weakness in that dept, I'm okay with it. That having been said an "Expert Basketweaver" feat that grants advantage for use of a trained skill seems fine to me. While we're on the subject I don't think I'd have a problem with an "Idiot savant" feat that replaced a stat bonus with a flat +3 or +5 for the purpose of one skill, to showcase the alcholic forger whose tremmor somehow goes away when he picks up the tools of his trade. The reason that is good is it allows you to overcome a weakness but at the not inconsiderable cost of a feat to show the effort you put into overcoming your weakness. And as it is recall that while the cleric can score higher on a trap spoting roll than the rogue, the rogues skill mastery means he still has the better average. [/QUOTE]

Verification