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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6575892" data-attributes="member: 996">There's the line between INT and an int-based skill, of course.  In 4e, IIRC, that line was exposure to specific information (history, arcana, religion).  Not a bad place to draw it.  Not the only place. That'd be an argument in favor of 5e's optional stat-independent proficiencies (or other systems like it in that sense, such as Storyteller).  If you had a proficiency 'locksmith,' you'd roll INT to remember information about locks, DEX to pick or repair a lock, WIS to settle on the most suitable lock for a given purpose, CHA to sell a customer a more expensive lock, and so forth... proficiency would apply each time.  In 4e, oddly, it'd be a matter of where (what plane) the lock was made, or the keyword of the creature making it.  Dwarven lock in the natural world: History.  Lock made by Quom to secure a vault containing sparks of their destroyed deity:  Religion.  Etc... It wouldn't be one of my favorite things about the system, but it's not a glaring negative, and certainly better than ranks or non-weapon proficiencies in both concept and implementation.  I feel like skills should be more thoroughly rolled into class (or background or theme) and level, rather than broken out quite the way they have been.  One of the merits of a class system is that you usually only need class/level and perhaps a few modifiers to determine what a character can do.  While systems like feats and skills and so forth add customizeability, they detract from that, a bit.  Nod.  It's not that it's a bad or unworkable system, it just emphasizes training over experience, in that you can't benefit from the latter without the former.  The differences among modern eds' skill systems are really more in the realm of what you're bad at than what you're good it.  In 4e, you get better even at the things you're bad at;  in 3.x, you can get better at the things you're bad at, if you really want to, but you give up becoming better at some things you're good at in a resource-distribution trade-off; in 5e, you only get better at things you're good at, (or suddenly get much better when you become proficient at a later level).</blockquote>

Verification