Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Baron Opal II" data-source="post: 8909624" data-attributes="member: 6794067">I agree, although I would say perhaps either/or, take the higher value, perhaps. I endorse the concept that ability score are &quot;talent&quot; where skills are, well, &quot;skill&quot; and tied to level. With Bounded Accuracy I think they need to be added together regardless.Given BA, I like this, but I think it would be better to gate a minimum competence with proficiency. Right now we have three levels of skill regardless of the numerical value; Untrained, Proficient, Expert. I think we can use that to clarify what actually needs skill checks versus uncanny or preternatural levels of skill.Yes, but infeasible under BA.Good grief, no. If I want a skill based game I'll play RuneQuest (which I enjoy). D&amp;D has classes, which should delineate what they are capable of doing. Each class should have the same number of skills, with a nod towards what they might have learned in an apprenticeship that they abandoned for adventuring (Background). If they want more skill proficiencies, that's what feats are for.Yes, sort of. I think those should be skills, and if there is a tool kit tied to a skill then there is a penalty applied. (Might be the same thing you said.)Yes, to the point of rolling three dice at a time. If you are rolling four dice then you pretty much win, from a Numberphile video I watched once (I think, might be wrong as to the source).Edit: I would prefer, personally, 20 or less skills. Also, there is also reliable. I don't think that can be applied to a non-proficient skill, but I'm uncertain.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Baron Opal II, post: 8909624, member: 6794067"] I agree, although I would say perhaps either/or, take the higher value, perhaps. I endorse the concept that ability score are "talent" where skills are, well, "skill" and tied to level. With Bounded Accuracy I think they need to be added together regardless. Given BA, I like this, but I think it would be better to gate a minimum competence with proficiency. Right now we have three levels of skill regardless of the numerical value; Untrained, Proficient, Expert. I think we can use that to clarify what actually needs skill checks versus uncanny or preternatural levels of skill. Yes, but infeasible under BA. Good grief, no. If I want a skill based game I'll play RuneQuest (which I enjoy). D&D has classes, which should delineate what they are capable of doing. Each class should have the same number of skills, with a nod towards what they might have learned in an apprenticeship that they abandoned for adventuring (Background). If they want more skill proficiencies, that's what feats are for. Yes, sort of. I think those should be skills, and if there is a tool kit tied to a skill then there is a penalty applied. (Might be the same thing you said.) Yes, to the point of rolling three dice at a time. If you are rolling four dice then you pretty much win, from a Numberphile video I watched once (I think, might be wrong as to the source). [i]Edit:[/i] I would prefer, personally, 20 or less skills. Also, there is also reliable. I don't think that can be applied to a non-proficient skill, but I'm uncertain. [/QUOTE]

Verification