Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RSIxidor" data-source="post: 7886185" data-attributes="member: 6695558">I like the granularity of skills in 3/3.5/PF.I like that you can take basically any skill, even if its not in your class list.I dislike how numbers go crazy at high levels.I dislike how your build may be completely hinged on boosting a skill far enough to pick up a specific feat at specific levels, or be left behind.I like the tiered (untrained/trained/expert) modes of skill training in 5e (though I wish expertise had a static definition instead of being explained in each class feature that uses it).I dislike the lack of granularity in choosing how to advance skills (because outside of a few class features and feats, advancing skills is not an option).It would be nice to have something somewhere between the skill rank system and what 5E has. Pathfinder 2 has a decent system that's somewhere in there, so another good thing to consider. I'm not 100% on it, but it's somewhere in there. You've got tiers of training and you choose what skills you take more training in but the 9 levels where you choose to learn a skill or advance one usually only give a single skill to learn or advance - but at least all characters get to learn and advance skills after level 1. At the same time, like 3/3.5/PF1, I don't like the expectations of skill ranks related to feats.I liked basically nothing about the 4E skill system, except that classes often had utility powers that improved a significant class skill some of the time (like Bards getting a big boost to charisma skills once an encounter). I wouldn't hate that being a normal part of the game again, in some way.Anyway, I'll probably never be happy with a skill system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RSIxidor, post: 7886185, member: 6695558"] I like the granularity of skills in 3/3.5/PF. I like that you can take basically any skill, even if its not in your class list. I dislike how numbers go crazy at high levels. I dislike how your build may be completely hinged on boosting a skill far enough to pick up a specific feat at specific levels, or be left behind. I like the tiered (untrained/trained/expert) modes of skill training in 5e (though I wish expertise had a static definition instead of being explained in each class feature that uses it). I dislike the lack of granularity in choosing how to advance skills (because outside of a few class features and feats, advancing skills is not an option). It would be nice to have something somewhere between the skill rank system and what 5E has. Pathfinder 2 has a decent system that's somewhere in there, so another good thing to consider. I'm not 100% on it, but it's somewhere in there. You've got tiers of training and you choose what skills you take more training in but the 9 levels where you choose to learn a skill or advance one usually only give a single skill to learn or advance - but at least all characters get to learn and advance skills after level 1. At the same time, like 3/3.5/PF1, I don't like the expectations of skill ranks related to feats. I liked basically nothing about the 4E skill system, except that classes often had utility powers that improved a significant class skill some of the time (like Bards getting a big boost to charisma skills once an encounter). I wouldn't hate that being a normal part of the game again, in some way. Anyway, I'll probably never be happy with a skill system. [/QUOTE]

Verification