Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hbarsquared" data-source="post: 5912386" data-attributes="member: 4550">I like it.  I was unnerved when I first heard "Skills as Feats that are called Traits," but I'm happier after reading this interpretation.I think this system makes sense when taken altogether, including all of the following:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Skills picked "like feats" as part of your background</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Automatic success for those with a high enough Ability and/or the specific training</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Flatter math so there's not a +30 spread between characters to attempt the same task.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Reliance on Ability scores for task resolution.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Player creativity and DM adjudication.</li> </ul>I like the choices a player has and the flexibility the DM might have.If Climb is just an ability check...  a PC can practically decide whether to use Str or Dex, depending on how they roleplay it.  But maybe only use the "Trained in Climbing" +2 bonus if it matches the same Ability?Hell, maybe a wizard can first make an Int check against the same Climb DC as everyone else (studying to pick a path), then make their Dex check with a +1/+2 circumstance bonus?I like how open and creative this system seems.I am thinking that traditional Skills that are a large part of combat might need to be treated separately.  Perception/Search for example.  If a Skill or Trait has the potential to give an advantage in combat (initiative, surprise rounds, avoiding traps, etc.) then everyone will feel it's necessary to take "Training in Perception," which I think Next wants to avoid.</blockquote>

Verification