Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="UngeheuerLich" data-source="post: 8396067" data-attributes="member: 59057">Here I disagree. If you take vanilla 3e or even 3.5 there are only a few classes that need a skill at max (bard with performance and spellcasters will spellcraft and concentration). Everything else can be a lot lower, as soon as you as a DM use DC 10 to 25 usually and accept, that a rogue IS EXCEPTIONALLY competent in many skills. If you raise the baseline to the rogue, then everyone else feels very bad with just 2 base skill points. Also if you take to heart, that taking 10 is often ok and taking 20 is the preferred method for many tasks (e.g. picking a lock) then suddenly everyon has a better game. It is sad that it took me years to actually realize how the design butifully works. If just cross class skills were explicitely called &quot;normal skills&quot; and class skills would be called &quot;expert skills&quot;. And of course, the &quot;required&quot; skills were just removed...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="UngeheuerLich, post: 8396067, member: 59057"] Here I disagree. If you take vanilla 3e or even 3.5 there are only a few classes that need a skill at max (bard with performance and spellcasters will spellcraft and concentration). Everything else can be a lot lower, as soon as you as a DM use DC 10 to 25 usually and accept, that a rogue IS EXCEPTIONALLY competent in many skills. If you raise the baseline to the rogue, then everyone else feels very bad with just 2 base skill points. Also if you take to heart, that taking 10 is often ok and taking 20 is the preferred method for many tasks (e.g. picking a lock) then suddenly everyon has a better game. It is sad that it took me years to actually realize how the design butifully works. If just cross class skills were explicitely called "normal skills" and class skills would be called "expert skills". And of course, the "required" skills were just removed... [/QUOTE]

Verification