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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6159497" data-attributes="member: 17106">No, but it only takes a few world travelers to disseminate information.I think you're really missing the point. The point of the skill system is to describe, not proscribe. Before 3e, there was little to no mechanical representation for a character who knew a lot, let alone about any particular topic. The point of the skill system is to let players describe their characters in a more thorough and standardized fashion. Not so much to draw lines on what they can and cannot do with those skills.AFAIC, that's pretty much how most skills work. If a player wants to do something, he declares the action, makes the roll, and I adjudicate it based on how impressed I am by the total package (his description and the roll).It's not an issue of intelligence, it's more about luck. After all, if an untrained character gets a 15 or a 20 on something, most of that result is likely from the die roll. It just means that the character overheard something years ago and remembered it, or made an intuitive leap. You don't need religious training to have a small chance of having heard of some rare undead creature or any religious fact. Everyone knows a few random esoteric things.I would think that a sufficiently charismatic person should be able to do things with either of those skills untrained. The whole trained only concept is really unnecessary. If you don't want untrained people doing something, raise the DC.That's why any challenging encounter ends with or without PC fatalities. Luck. Luck is part of the equation.Anyone with gold and a spare life to trade (or equal or greater HD to the target to be raised). Which is an official variant, BTW.Not really, no.</blockquote>

Verification