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: 5841856" data-attributes="member: 1465">I really hope my comment doesn't sound too blunt but... are you sure you know what skills represent? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />IMHO you have a very restrictive idea of what a skill should do: one and only thing. That's not true... some skills are like that (the worst offender was probably Read Lips in 3.0) while other skills are versatile (Spellcraft, Stealth and indeed Survival). There is no hard-coded reason to design a skill to represent one and only type of activity. And there is no hard-coded reasons for skills not to overlap. And there is no hard-coded reasons to think that only the core skills should exist and you are not allowed to come up with more (e.g. an equivalent of Survival for urban environments, although maybe you could just take Knowledge(Local) and extend its capabilities).Survival / Wilderness Lore is the perfect example of a skill well-designed actually... When you are thinking about splitting or merging skills, don't wear the pedantic hat of a rationalist who thinks skills should be perfectly logical and perfectly separated. Wear instead the hat of a DM who sees skills in terms of what they can provide to the player, and split/merge (or alternatively add/remove possible uses) based on your practical judgement on whether a skill is too good or too weak (my favourite way to make adjustments to a campaign has always been to keep the skill list as much as possible, and add more uses to the weakest skills to make them used more frequently).</blockquote>

Verification