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: 6160114" data-attributes="member: 17106">In some rpgs, particularly skill-based ones, Knowledge is a skill on the same level as, say, Guns. This makes more sense, really. And I don't see that Knowledge is a limited focus of game activity. My players probably roll around the same number of Knowledge checks that they do attack rolls or saving throws. It's pretty useful to know stuff in most D&D games.You missed the part where the DM controls his success or failure. The DM decides what rolls to make, what modifiers apply, and what the results mean. A player who chooses to speak eloquently or otherwise take useful actions can influence how the DM adjudicates the rules. None of which is particularly eyebrow-raising; that's D&D 101: you control your character's actions.Nothing. None of them need a trained only clause. There's no reason an untrained character can't attempt to sail, cook, or make a living at some profession. Or try to build something. Or perform. Or know useful facts.If you're doing a modern rpg, it may be that an untrained character can't use a computer or fly a plane. If you're doing magic skill-based, it may be that an untrained character can't do magic. Magic and technology are the only two big examples that I can think of where trained-only is reasonable.Yes, assuming the PCs have no morals and nothing bad ever comes of taking prisoners. Practically speaking, no, doing this is not a good idea.***The rest of this stuff is hyperbolic and repetitive and isn't worth continuing.</blockquote>

Verification