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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6312357" data-attributes="member: 1465">Inflating the skill list is not necessarily a bad thing. It depends if you like playing a game where the party (as a whole) is good at everything, or a game where the party has some things they're not good at (and have to find another way). In the last playtest packet we had 18 skills, thus for a party of 4 including a Rogue or Bard it may be easy to "cover" all of them. I wouldn't mind a skill list 50% longer, at all.The separation isn't a bad idea. It's interesting to separate stuff you can try anyway and stuff you can't, but not that different than trained/untrained skills in 3e*. Eventually the separation has a drawback: a mild "siloing" effect, because you have to have 3 skills exactly in a background, and 0-3 tools, but cannot have a PC with 6 skills or another with 6 tools (or 4-2 or 5-1), and there is no special reason why they couldn't.Furthermore, tools' additional effects could exist even if tools' proficiency was folded together with a skill.IOW, the current system is a-OK, but I don't think it's especially better nor worse than other possible alternatives. Small pros and small cons...*edit: ok maybe it is significantly different, but honestly the separation between equipped/unequipped feels even less interesting to meI totally agree... In general I don't mind overlapping skills, but the climb and disguise cases are more like having skills(tools) that are entirely contained in other skills. They make little sense unless the tools unlock additional benefits. They can easily trick a player, especially a beginner, into picking both the skill and the tool, only to find out later that he has been deceived.</blockquote>

Verification