Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Atomoctba" data-source="post: 8914471" data-attributes="member: 6996733">Sorry. I prefer they as an afterthought. See, one of the best parts of 5e design (in my own opinion, of course), is that everything you want to do can be gated to just six scores (the abilities). The player declares anything and DM says, &quot;it seems an use of X ability&quot;. Then, the afterthought is think if you would have any proficiency to do specifically that. Perhaps not even a skill, but a tool proficiency. Simple. Elegant.I disagree, again. It is part of the &quot;style of the game&quot;. If I am playing a more realist system, yes. I want much less variance in the results. And represented by a Gaussian curve instead of a linear. But, for me, D&amp;D-esque games are lots of things, but realistic is not one of them. They are fantasy, pulp stories. In that stories, even the best swordman of the world fumbles (specially if he is the villain) and the common people is occasionally able to do amazing things. 1 natural and 20 natural covers that and the ratio among d20 values/modifiers to the roll is swing about the sweet spot for that style of game.I am not sure about this one. I like diversity in the party. Perhaps more proficient skills (or more skill points) create overlaps among the players' abilities. I would need to think a bit more about this part.The elegance of non-staking vantage/advantage is that they get not lots of thought about. Simpler and cleaner. I dislike lots of typed modifiers that do not stack and, worse yet, lots of modifiers to apply to a same check instead of a simple generic plus or minus something.To clarify, I understand your points and all of them are fine and perfectly valid for the type of game you want... It is just not the same type of game I want. So take it constructively to debate opposite views and we both learn one with another even disagreeing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Atomoctba, post: 8914471, member: 6996733"] Sorry. I prefer they as an afterthought. See, one of the best parts of 5e design (in my own opinion, of course), is that everything you want to do can be gated to just six scores (the abilities). The player declares anything and DM says, "it seems an use of X ability". Then, the afterthought is think if you would have any proficiency to do specifically that. Perhaps not even a skill, but a tool proficiency. Simple. Elegant. I disagree, again. It is part of the "style of the game". If I am playing a more realist system, yes. I want much less variance in the results. And represented by a Gaussian curve instead of a linear. But, for me, D&D-esque games are lots of things, but realistic is not one of them. They are fantasy, pulp stories. In that stories, even the best swordman of the world fumbles (specially if he is the villain) and the common people is occasionally able to do amazing things. 1 natural and 20 natural covers that and the ratio among d20 values/modifiers to the roll is swing about the sweet spot for that style of game. I am not sure about this one. I like diversity in the party. Perhaps more proficient skills (or more skill points) create overlaps among the players' abilities. I would need to think a bit more about this part. The elegance of non-staking vantage/advantage is that they get not lots of thought about. Simpler and cleaner. I dislike lots of typed modifiers that do not stack and, worse yet, lots of modifiers to apply to a same check instead of a simple generic plus or minus something. To clarify, I understand your points and all of them are fine and perfectly valid for the type of game you want... It is just not the same type of game I want. So take it constructively to debate opposite views and we both learn one with another even disagreeing. [/QUOTE]

Verification